Opinion
2016-12719
March 27, 2019, Decided
Bryan L. Salamone & Associates, P.C., Melville, NY (Marc H. Stein of counsel), for appellant.
Amy S. Nord, Valley Stream, NY, for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elizabeth A. Anderson, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered July 14, 2016. The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision and order of the same court dated January 20, 2015, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant nondurational maintenance in the sum of $333 per month commencing in 2018 and attorney's fees in the sum of $15,000.
Ordered that the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married in 1978, and all of their children are emancipated. The plaintiff appeals from the portions of the parties' judgment of divorce regarding maintenance and attorney's fees.
The factors to consider in awarding maintenance include "the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of both parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, and the reduced or lost lifetime earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance" ( Kret v Kret, 222 AD2d 412, 412, 634 NYS2d 719 [1995], citing Domestic Relations Law former § 236 [B] [6] [a]; see Heymann v Heymann, 102 AD3d 832, 834, 958 NYS2d 448 [2013]). The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and each case must be determined on its unique facts ( see Carr-Harris v Carr-Harris, 98 AD3d 548, 551, 949 NYS2d 707 [2012]; Mazzone v Mazzone, 290 AD2d 495, 496, 736 NYS2d 683 [2002]). Here, the Supreme Court considered the 30-year duration of the marriage, the age of the defendant, her health, and her limited education, as well as her limited future earning capacity and the disparity in the parties' respective incomes in awarding the defendant nondurational maintenance ( see Marino v Marino, 52 AD3d 585, 585, 860 NYS2d 170 [2008]; Keane v Keane, 25 AD3d 729, 731, 809 NYS2d 133 [2006], mod on other grounds 8 NY3d 115, 861 NE2d 98, 828 NYS2d 283 [2006]). Under the circumstances, we agree with the court's determination awarding the defendant nondurational maintenance in the sum of $333 per month commencing in 2018.
We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination awarding attorney's fees to the defendant in the sum of $15,000. The determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney's fees is within the court's discretion ( see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Duffy v Duffy, 84 AD3d 1151, 1152, 924 NYS2d 449 [2011]; Kaplan v Kaplan, 51 AD3d 635, 637, 857 NYS2d 677 [2008]). In exercising its discretion, a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions ( see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881, 518 NE2d 1168, 524 NYS2d 176 [1987]). Under the circumstances present here, including the disparity in the parties' incomes and particularly the plaintiff's refusal to pay the defendant any of the sums awarded to her under a pendente lite order in the action, the complexity of the issues involved, and the relative merits of the parties' positions, the award of attorney's fees in the sum of $15,000 should not be disturbed ( see Cotter v Cotter, 139 AD3d 995, 996, 30 NYS3d 828 [2016]; Matter of Brink v Brink, 55 AD3d 601, 602, 867 NYS2d 94 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.