From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swift v. Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 1999
260 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 12, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the amount of counsel fees and disbursements awarded to the plaintiff from $37,550.69 to $36,530.69; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the order is modified accordingly.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Ordinarily, counsel fees should not be awarded for time expended by an attorney in order to obtain an award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (c) (cf., O'Shea v. O'Shea, 249 A.D.2d 524; Matter of Dalessandro v. O'Brien, 248 A.D.2d 468; Harkavy v. Harkavy, 167 A.D.2d 510; Schussler v. Schussler, 123 A.D.2d 618). We do not agree with the plaintiff's contention that the parties' stipulation dated June 2, 1997, which provided that the plaintiff was entitled to counsel fees "for all services rendered since August 1, 1996", constituted an agreement that she was entitled to counsel fees for amounts expended subsequent to June 2, 1997, in connection with the preparation of her request for attorney's fees. As the plaintiff does not dispute the defendant's contention on appeal that $1,020 of the counsel fee award was expended in connection with her attorney's fee application, we have reduced the judgment accordingly.

Contrary to the defendant's remaining contention, the counsel fee award was reasonable under the circumstances (see generally, Matter of Potts, 213 App. Div. 59, 62, affd 241 N.Y. 593 ; Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1; Willis v. Willis, 149 A.D.2d 584).

O'Brien, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Swift v. Swift

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 12, 1999
260 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Swift v. Swift

Case Details

Full title:LORI SWIFT, Respondent, v. CRAIG SWIFT, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 12, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 223