Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Usha SUTARIA, respondent, v. Samir SUTARIA, appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated July 2, 2012, as granted the plaintiff's cross motion for an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of $73,602.46.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a), an award of counsel fees “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’ “ (Prichep v. Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 64, quoting Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473; see Mueller v. Mueller, 113 AD3d 660; Carr–Harris v. Carr–Harris, 98 AD3d 548, 552). In determining whether to award counsel fees, the court should “review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions” (DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881; see Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 AD3d 765, 766; Matter of Baribault v. Sauvola, 101 AD3d 865, 866; Ciampa v. Ciampa, 47 AD3d 745, 748). The court may also consider whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in delays of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 AD3d at 766; Khan v. Ahmed, 98 AD3d 471, 473; Prichep v. Prichep, 52 AD3d at 64; Ciampa v. Ciampa, 47 AD3d at 748).
Here, considering all of the relevant circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $73,602.46. There is a significant income disparity between the parties, and the defendant's conduct throughout these proceedings unnecessarily delayed the litigation (see Mueller v. Mueller, 113 AD3d 660, 661; Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 AD3d at 765–766; Peritore v. Peritore, 50 AD3d 874, 875).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 17, 2014
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)