Patricia Finn, appellant, v. Frederick Piesco, Jr., respondent. (2026)

Submitted—May 21, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

O/

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from stated portions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.), dated November 9, 2021.  The judgment of divorce, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, did not award maintenance to the plaintiff and awarded attorney's fees to the defendant in the sum of $10,000 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1.

ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding attorney's fees to the defendant in the sum of $10,000 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1;  as so modified, the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a hearing and a new determination as to the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the defendant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment of divorce thereafter.

The parties were married in 1995.  In April 2013, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, and, after a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court issued a judgment of divorce dated November 9, 2021.  Pursuant to the judgment of divorce, the court, among other things, did not award maintenance to the plaintiff and awarded attorney's fees to the defendant in the sum of $10,000 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1. The plaintiff appeals from stated portions of the judgment of divorce.

“The amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on its unique facts” (Culen v. Culen, 157 AD3d 926, 928;  see Carroll v. Carroll, 125 AD3d 710, 711).  Here, considering the relevant factors, including the determination that the plaintiff's law practice constituted her separate property, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for maintenance (see Ostrower v. Ostrower, 148 AD3d 819, 820;  Szewczuk v. Szewczuk, 107 AD3d 692, 693).

The Supreme Court properly refused to consider a photocopy of a document that the plaintiff alleged was an executed copy of the parties' separation agreement.  Where, as here, there is a dispute as to the contents of a document, the best evidence rule requires the production of the original writing (see Schozer v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 84 N.Y.2d 639, 643;  Billingy v. Blagrove, 84 AD3d 848, 848).

The Supreme Court should have held a hearing as to the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the defendant before issuing an award of attorney's fees to the defendant's counsel in the sum of $10,000 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1. There were no detailed billing records submitted to demonstrate whether the amount of attorney's fees awarded was reasonable (see Gertler v Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, LLP, 233 AD3d 846, 847–848;  Lancer Indem.  Co. v. JKH Realty Group, LLC, 127 AD3d 1035, 1036).  Thus, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a hearing and a new determination as to the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the defendant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130–1.1 and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment of divorce thereafter (see Neeman v. Smith, 227 AD3d 818, 821;  Kiszenik v Country Lincoln–Mercury W., LLC, 48 AD3d 756, 756).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and VENTURA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court