ADJMI v. TAWIL (2020)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, directing plaintiff husband to pay $7,000 monthly in child support and the parties' child's tuition at a Jewish day school from preschool through 12th grade, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered January 22, 2019, to the extent it awarded defendant wife counsel fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the order vacated to that extent, and appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The trial record demonstrates that the child support award amply provides for the child's actual needs (see Matter of Vladlena B. v. Mathias G., 52 A.D.3d 431, 861 N.Y.S.2d 331 [1st Dept. 2008] ).  As the parties separated while defendant was still pregnant, “it cannot be said that a standard of living was established for the child” (Michael J.D. v. Carolina E.P., 138 A.D.3d 151, 157, 25 N.Y.S.3d 196 [1st Dept. 2016] ).  Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff's wealth alone is insufficient to warrant doubling the child support award (see id. at 157–158, 25 N.Y.S.3d 196;  Vladlena B., 52 A.D.3d at 431, 861 N.Y.S.2d 331).

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in directing plaintiff to pay 100% of the child's tuition at a Jewish day school from preschool through 12th grade (see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][c][7] ).  The evidence establishes that two of defendant's children and three of plaintiff's children attended Jewish day schools and that plaintiff actively supported religious education and could afford the tuition (see Friedman v. Friedman, 216 A.D.2d 204, 205, 629 N.Y.S.2d 221 [1st Dept. 1995] [private religious school appropriate where “religion has been an integral part of the family lifestyle”] ).

The award of counsel fees to defendant is precluded by her attorney's failure to comply with the rules pertaining to domestic relations matters (22 NYCRR part 1400) (Montoya v. Montoya, 143 A.D.3d 865, 865–866, 40 N.Y.S.3d 151 [2d Dept. 2016];  Julien v. Machson, 245 A.D.2d 122, 666 N.Y.S.2d 147 [1st Dept. 1997] ).  Defendant was represented in these matrimonial proceedings by her father, a patent lawyer, for more than a year.  However, she did not execute a retainer agreement until shortly before the trial, and she testified that her father had never sent her an itemized bill (see 22 NYCRR 1400.3).