From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cole v. Cole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1992
182 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 20, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the award of interim counsel fees was a proper exercise of the court's discretion. The plaintiff is a homemaker, unemployed outside the home, whose only income is interest from a trust fund established with funds she inherited from her father. The principal of the trust is approximately $110,000 and the income interest is approximately $8,000 a year. The defendant has an annual gross income of about $97,000. Thus, the plaintiff's financial need and the parties' disparate incomes support the award (see, Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Hausman v Hausman, 162 A.D.2d 590). Further, we note that indigency is not a prerequisite to an award of counsel fees and a party is not required to exhaust his or her own capital in order to qualify for an interim counsel fee award (see, Hyman v Hyman, 56 A.D.2d 337; Hinden v Hinden, 122 Misc.2d 552). Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cole v. Cole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1992
182 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Cole v. Cole

Case Details

Full title:ANN COLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES D. COLE, JR., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 20, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 485

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Wilson

Accordingly, this matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a new custody determination and a retroactive…

Vlamis v. Vlamis

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its…