Opinion
November 12, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Hughes, J.).
In determining whether to award counsel fees in a matrimonial action, we have stated that a court "must examine the circumstances of the case and financial circumstances of each of the parties and then exercise its discretion" and that "each case will be sui generis" (Walsh v Walsh, 92 A.D.2d 345, 347; see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879). Applying this standard to the facts of the case now before us, we are of the view that the decision of Supreme Court to award counsel fees to plaintiff pendente lite must be upheld. It is evident from the record that defendant's resources far exceed those of plaintiff (see, Foxx v Foxx, 114 A.D.2d 605; Walsh v Walsh, supra). In addition, as the court pointed out, defendant has resisted discovery proceedings causing delay and unnecessary litigation expenses (see, Brennen v Brennen, 148 A.D.2d 487; Davis v Davis, 128 A.D.2d 470). The fact that plaintiff is employed and has some financial resources of her own is not dispositive (see, Capolino v Capolino, 174 A.D.2d 825; Koerner v Koerner, 170 A.D.2d 297).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.