From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bagielto v. Kolsch

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

03-08-2017

Deborah BAGIELTO, respondent, v. Karen KOLSCH, appellant.

Gunilla Perez–Faringer, White Plains, NY, for appellant. Berler & Tanenbaum, P.C., Port Jefferson, NY (Evan Tanenbaum of counsel), for respondent.


Gunilla Perez–Faringer, White Plains, NY, for appellant.

Berler & Tanenbaum, P.C., Port Jefferson, NY (Evan Tanenbaum of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, HECTOR D. LaSALLE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (David T. Reilly, J.), dated October 14, 2014, and a money judgment of that court entered December 22, 2014. The order awarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $30,000. The money judgment, upon the order, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $30,000.

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed, as the order was superseded by the money judgment.

In a matrimonial action, an award of an attorney's fee is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Cusumano v. Cusumano, 96 A.D.3d 988, 947 N.Y.S.2d 175 ). An award of an attorney's fee pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a)"will generally be warranted where there is a significant disparity in the financial circumstances of the parties" (Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, 65, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667 ; see Chesner v. Chesner, 95 A.D.3d 1252, 945 N.Y.S.2d 409 ; Palmeri v. Palmeri, 87 A.D.3d 572, 929 N.Y.S.2d 153 ; Fredericks v. Fredericks, 85 A.D.3d 1107, 927 N.Y.S.2d 109 ). In determining whether to award an attorney's fee, the court should review the financial circumstances of both parties, together with all of the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions (see Chesner v. Chesner, 95 A.D.3d 1252, 945 N.Y.S.2d 409 ; Chaudry v. Chaudry, 95 A.D.3d 1058, 945 N.Y.S.2d 110 ; Perry v. Perry, 88 A.D.3d 861, 931 N.Y.S.2d 516 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $30,000. In reaching this determination, the court properly considered the relative financial circumstances of the parties, and the particular circumstances of the case (see Turner v. Turner, 130 A.D.3d 609, 10 N.Y.S.3d 891 ; Matter of Brink v. Brink, 55 A.D.3d 601, 602, 867 N.Y.S.2d 94 ; Ventimiglia v. Ventimiglia, 36 A.D.3d 899, 830 N.Y.S.2d 210 ).


Summaries of

Bagielto v. Kolsch

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 8, 2017
148 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Bagielto v. Kolsch

Case Details

Full title:Deborah BAGIELTO, respondent, v. Karen KOLSCH, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 8, 2017

Citations

148 A.D.3d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
148 A.D.3d 766

Citing Cases

Ravishankar v. Apontes

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant counsel fees in the sum…

Miller v. Miller

At the conclusion of this matter, this court can review the financial circumstances of both parties after…