From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 1991
175 A.D.2d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

July 8, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charde, J.H.O.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A review of the instant record leads us to the conclusion that the pendente lite award to the wife of $10,300 in counsel fees and expert fees is appropriate. The wife, as the moving party, set forth in detail (1) the nature of the marital property involved, (2) the difficulties involved in identifying and evaluating it, (3) the services rendered and to be rendered and an estimate of the time involved, and (4) her financial status (see, Ahern v Ahern, 94 A.D.2d 53). In opposing the wife's motion, the husband did not set forth any evidence regarding his own financial circumstances or the relative merits of his position (cf., McCarthy v McCarthy, 156 A.D.2d 346). Contrary to the husband's assertion, this motion was not brought for the sole purpose of delaying the trial. Both parties agreed to permit the court to refer the issues in dispute to a Judicial Hearing Officer to hear and determine those issues.

Upon our review of the record we also find that the court equitably distributed the parties' property, taking into consideration the credible evidence adduced at trial and the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d). Bracken, J.P., Kooper, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 8, 1991
175 A.D.2d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. GERALDINE RODRIGUEZ, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 8, 1991

Citations

175 A.D.2d 157 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
573 N.Y.S.2d 897

Citing Cases

Kiersh v. Kiersh

In any event, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, e.g., Gabrelian v…