From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klepp v. Klepp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2007
44 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-01305.

October 2, 2007.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 29, 1972, the plaintiff former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered January 4, 2006, which, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant former wife's motion which was for an award of counsel fees.

Medina, O'Brien, Mamo Garcia, Ossining, N.Y. (Luis A. Medina of counsel), for appellant.

McCarthy Fingar, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Joel Martin Arnou of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Santucci and Dillon, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, counsel fees were properly awardable not under Domestic Relations Law § 237 (c), as argued by the parties, but under Domestic Relations Law § 238 ( see D'Anna v D'Anna, 17 AD3d 400, 402). The amount of the award is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879). Here, the court providently exercised its discretion given the great disparity in the parties' financial condition, the plaintiff's dilatory tactics, the relative merits of the parties' positions on the defendant's post-judgment motion ( see Sevdinoglou v Sevdinoglou, 40 AD3d 959), and the documented time, effort, and skill of the defendant's counsel ( see Benzaken v Benzaken, 21 AD3d 391, 392).


Summaries of

Klepp v. Klepp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 2007
44 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Klepp v. Klepp

Case Details

Full title:MARTON KLEPP, Appellant, v. ANITA KLEPP, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 2007

Citations

44 A.D.3d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 7407
841 N.Y.S.2d 883

Citing Cases

O'Shea v. Cross

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in…

Munsterman v. Munsterman

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding counsel fees to the plaintiff.…