MILCHIN v. MILCHIN (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas Hoffman, J.), entered on or about August 5, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant father's applications for attorney's fees and sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court appropriately exercised its discretionary denial of the father's applications for attorney's fees.  The father failed to include the required statement of net worth, or comparable statement evidencing his income in either of his applications as required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §§ 237, 238 and 22 NYCRR 202.16(k)(2) (see Lek v. Lek, 232 A.D.3d 547, 547, 221 N.Y.S.3d 70 [1st Dept. 2024], lv dismissed 43 N.Y.3d 926, 229 N.Y.S.3d 102, 254 N.E.3d 646 [2025];  Trevino v. Pray, 217 A.D.3d 592, 593, 192 N.Y.S.3d 63 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Nor was there good cause shown by the father establishing why the court should dispense with that requirement (see Levy v. Levy, 272 A.D.2d 207, 208, 708 N.Y.S.2d 292 [1st Dept. 2000]).  Furthermore, the record before the motion court was devoid of any evidence which it could have considered to be in “substantial compliance” with the prescribed statement of net worth form (22 NYCRR 202.16[b];  Antoine L. v. Virginie F., 212 A.D.3d 502, 183 N.Y.S.3d 71 [1st Dept. 2023]).

We perceive no reason to disturb the motion court's determinations (Grozea v. Lagoutova, 67 A.D.3d 611, 611, 888 N.Y.S.2d 507 [1st Dept. 2009]).  To the contrary, the court presided over the parties' matrimonial action, motion practice, the hearing on the issue of substantial change of circumstances with respect to custody of the parties' children, and the parties' settlement of the custody issues, and was thus in the best position to determine whether the mother's conduct warranted sanctions or imposition of legal fees.

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.