DARVAS v. DARVAS (1997)

In a matrimonial action the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated August 5, 1996, as awarded the plaintiff wife maintenance and expert and attorney's fees pendente lite.

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of expert and attorney's fees to the extent of awarding the plaintiff “the sum of $10,000 towards the costs of trial preparation including expert and attorneys fees”, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion with leave to renew upon the proper papers;  as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

 “[P]endente lite awards for the services of certain experts * * * must be based upon sound judicial discretion after weighing applications which [among other things] set forth in detail * * * the services to be rendered and an estimate of the time involved” (Ahern v. Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53, 58, 463 N.Y.S.2d 238).   In this case, the plaintiff did not set forth a sufficient basis upon which to determine an award of expert fees.   Her application contained no information concerning the anticipated expert work involved, nor an estimate of the number of hours necessary to complete the work, nor any details with respect to the difficulties involved in evaluating the marital property (see, Coppola v. Coppola, 129 A.D.2d 760, 514 N.Y.S.2d 754;  see also, Mockler v. Mockler, 205 A.D.2d 510, 612 N.Y.S.2d 662;  Roach v. Roach, 193 A.D.2d 660, 597 N.Y.S.2d 468).   Similarly, interim counsel fees should not have been granted as there was inadequate documentation regarding the legal services which had already been rendered (Cronin v. Cronin, 158 A.D.2d 447, 551 N.Y.S.2d 44).   In particular, the plaintiff's counsel did not submit his time records, or otherwise provide a breakdown of services rendered and the time expended relative to each service (see, Mulcahy v. Mulcahy, 170 A.D.2d 587, 566 N.Y.S.2d 363;  see also, Hughes v. Hughes, 208 A.D.2d 502, 617 N.Y.S.2d 56;  Loewentheil v. Loewentheil, 197 A.D.2d 677, 603 N.Y.S.2d 17).   However, since it appears that expert and legal fees may be necessary, the plaintiff may renew her application upon more substantial papers (see, Gastineau v. Gastineau, 127 A.D.2d 629, 511 N.Y.S.2d 654).

 The award of temporary maintenance here was not such as to prevent the husband from meeting his own financial needs.   In any event, a speedy trial is the proper remedy to rectify any inequities in an order directing the payment of temporary maintenance (see, Gold v. Gold, 212 A.D.2d 503, 622 N.Y.S.2d 113;  Messina v. Messina, 101 A.D.2d 856, 476 N.Y.S.2d 7).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.