Opinion
2017–11948 Index No. 10173/14
04-24-2019
Ann Marie LICOSTIE, Appellant, v. Cary LICOSTIE, Respondent.
Ann Marie Licostie, Holbrook, NY, appellant pro se. Beth A. Swendsen–Dowd, Garden City South, NY, for respondent.
Ann Marie Licostie, Holbrook, NY, appellant pro se.
Beth A. Swendsen–Dowd, Garden City South, NY, for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carol Mackenzie, J.), dated September 21, 2017. The order granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees only to the extent of directing the defendant to pay attorney's fees in the sum of $ 2,500.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by increasing the attorney's fees to be paid by the defendant to the sum of $ 7,500; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff's counsel moved for an award of attorney's fees from the defendant. The Supreme Court granted the motion only to the extent of directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of $ 2,500. The plaintiff appeals.
"An award of an attorney's fee 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’ " ( Patete v. Rodriguez, 109 A.D.3d 595, 599, 971 N.Y.S.2d 109, quoting Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 A.D.2d 472, 473, 686 N.Y.S.2d 71 ; see Chaudry v. Chaudry, 95 A.D.3d 1058, 1059, 945 N.Y.S.2d 110 ). In determining whether to award fees, the court should review the financial circumstances of the parties and the circumstances of the case as a whole, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions and whether either party has engaged in conduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Odermatt v. Odermatt, 119 A.D.3d 754, 755, 989 N.Y.S.2d 335 ; Mueller v. Mueller, 113 A.D.3d 660, 978 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; Guzzo v. Guzzo, 110 A.D.3d 765, 973 N.Y.S.2d 265 ; Patete v. Rodriguez, 109 A.D.3d 595, 971 N.Y.S.2d 109 ; Formica v. Formica, 101 A.D.3d 805, 807, 957 N.Y.S.2d 149 ). This Court's discretionary authority to award attorney's fees is as broad as that of the trial court (see Cohen v. Cohen, 160 A.D.3d 804, 806, 74 N.Y.S.3d 349 ).
Here, considering the equities and circumstances of the case, and in particular the disparity in the parties' income, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees in the sum of only $ 2,500 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] ; Haspel v. Haspel, 78 A.D.3d 887, 892, 911 N.Y.S.2d 408 ; Peritore v. Peritore, 50 A.D.3d 874, 875, 855 N.Y.S.2d 646 ). Accordingly, the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff should be increased to the sum of $ 7,500.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.