From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Merrick v. Merrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 1993
190 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 2, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.).


Taking into account the parties' ability to pay, the complexity of the litigation, the nature, extent and reasonableness of the services rendered, and the projection of services to be rendered (see, Gabor v Gabor, 161 A.D.2d 350), as well as the obstructionist conduct on plaintiff's part that has prolonged the litigation (see, Lesnick v Lesnick, 167 A.D.2d 888), we find no abuse of discretion in the award of additional counsel fees in the amount substantially less than counsel's time charges alone. Questions concerning certain of the claimed disbursements can be determined at the hearing to be eventually held in connection with the fee application. Since we disagree with defendant's contention that this appeal is frivolous, we deny defendant's request for the imposition of sanctions.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Merrick v. Merrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 1993
190 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Merrick v. Merrick

Case Details

Full title:DAVID MERRICK, Appellant, v. ETAN MERRICK, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 2, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 191

Citing Cases

Troy v. Troy

The award of interim attorneys' and experts' fees was a proper exercise of the court's discretion (Domestic…

M.R. v. A.D

Applications for appellate counsel fees are properly made to the court that issued the order appealed from (…