Opinion
2018–06374 Index No. 3406/12
07-10-2019
Robert LUGO, Appellant, v. Larissa TORRES, Respondent.
Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Faith G. Miller and Evan Wiederkehr of counsel), for appellant. The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, PLLC, Harrison, NY, for respondent.
Miller Zeiderman & Wiederkehr LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Faith G. Miller and Evan Wiederkehr of counsel), for appellant.
The Law Offices of Salihah R. Denman, PLLC, Harrison, NY, for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
An award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(a) is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the issue is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case (see Chesner v. Chesner, 95 A.D.3d 1252, 945 N.Y.S.2d 409 ). 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 (see DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168 ). "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" ( Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, 64, 858 N.Y.S.2d 667 ).
Here, the plaintiff's dilatory conduct resulted in unnecessarily protracting this otherwise straightforward matrimonial action (see Lugo v. Torres, 132 A.D.3d 824, 824–825, 17 N.Y.S.3d 887 ). Moreover, the plaintiff's litigiousness was fueled by seemingly unlimited family resources, which allowed him to spend well over $800,000 in litigating this case. Under these unusual circumstances (see Nederlander v. Nederlander, 102 A.D.3d 416, 417–418, 958 N.Y.S.2d 45 ), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the defendant counsel fees in the sum of $193,549 (see Chesner v. Chesner, 95 A.D.3d 1252, 945 N.Y.S.2d 409 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and LASALLE, JJ., concur.