LOPEZ v. LOPEZ (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Edmund M. Dane, J.), entered September 28, 2021.  The order granted the plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys’ fees to the extent of awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the sum of $12,500.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

During the pendency of this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff moved for an award of interim attorneys’ fees in the sum of $75,000.  Prior to the determination on the motion, the parties settled all other issues in the action, except for the issue of attorneys’ fees.  The parties agreed that the final determination of attorneys’ fees would be made upon the plaintiff's motion for an award of interim attorneys’ fees.

In an order entered September 28, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion to the extent of awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the sum of $12,500.  The defendant appeals, and we affirm.

“An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue ‘is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case’ ” (Patanella v. Keveney, 145 A.D.3d 686, 687, 43 N.Y.S.3d 429, quoting Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473, 686 N.Y.S.2d 71).  “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” (Bagielto v. Kolsch, 148 A.D.3d 766, 766, 48 N.Y.S.3d 741).  “The court may also consider whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation” (McMahon v. McMahon, 120 A.D.3d 1316, 1316, 992 N.Y.S.2d 550).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the sum of $12,500.  In reaching this determination, the court properly considered the relative financial circumstances of the parties and the particular circumstances of the case (see Bagielto v. Kolsch, 148 A.D.3d at 766, 48 N.Y.S.3d 741;  Patanella v. Keveney, 145 A.D.3d at 687, 43 N.Y.S.3d 429).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, FORD and WARHIT, JJ., concur.