CHAN v. FRALEY (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeanine R. Johnson, J.), entered on or about July 7, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's application for interim counsel fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and counsel fees awarded to plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 in addition to that previously ordered.

The court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to award plaintiff interim counsel fees beyond the $15,000 previously awarded. The award of counsel fees to plaintiff is supported by the respective financial positions of the parties as well as other circumstances of the case (see Saunders v. Guberman, 130 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2015]). There is an economic disparity between the parties. Plaintiff had to expend funds in connection with the stipulation, commencement of the divorce action, to enforce the December 2024 Interim Order, to retain and re-retain counsel, in part due to defendant's dilatory behavior, and to borrow funds for this purpose. Under the circumstances the denial of counsel fees on top of the initial $15,000 awarded on an emergency basis, which the husband has not paid, appears inexplicably low (see Charpie v. Charpie, 271 A.D.2d 169, 173 [1st Dept 2000]). Although not addressed by the motion court, the record reflects that plaintiff submitted evidence detailing the reasonableness of the fees sought and the services rendered. Accordingly, we award $10,000 in additional interim counsel fees.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.