From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1986
120 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 6, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley S. Ostrau, J.).


In March 1984, plaintiff-respondent wife instituted an action for divorce from appellant in New York County Supreme Court and was represented by the firm of Messrs. Bronstein, Van Veen Bronstein (hereinafter Bronstein), the moving party below, pursuant to a retainer agreement dated February 7, 1984. After one year of pretrial litigation, appellant and respondent entered into a settlement agreement which limited appellant's liability for the wife's debts to those set forth therein. The parties also agreed to discontinue the New York action and obtain a divorce in the Dominican Republic. Because Bronstein was opposed to Mrs. Taylor's settlement plan, Mrs. Taylor retained new counsel. Bronstein refused to sign the consent to change attorney form on the ground that respondent owed the firm $85,000 in legal fees. Bronstein, however, did not at this point move to withdraw as counsel and seek an assessment of fees.

On May 8, 1985, respondent obtained a divorce decree in the Dominican Republic and on May 12, 1985, a stipulation discontinuing the New York action was entered into by the parties. It was not until six weeks later that Bronstein moved for leave to withdraw as counsel, for a judicial assessment of their compensation and for an order directing appellant to pay the amount assessed. The court below, finding that there had been no substitution of counsel, granted Bronstein's motion, describing it as "appropriate and timely."

There is no merit to Bronstein's claim that the stipulation discontinuing the New York action with prejudice on the basis of the foreign divorce was invalid. Because there was no longer any matrimonial action pending to confer jurisdiction on the court, the court below had no authority under Domestic Relations Law § 237 to direct an award of counsel fees. Under Domestic Relations Law § 237, a motion for attorney's fees must be made prior to final judgment. Postjudgment applications for fees may only be granted for legal services and expenses incurred after rendition of the final judgment. (Roscini v Roscini, 45 A.D.2d 254, 257.) Accordingly, we reverse the order directing appellant to pay respondent's counsel's fees.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Fein, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 6, 1986
120 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Taylor v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:JOCELYN K. TAYLOR, Respondent, v. DOUGLAS C. TAYLOR, Appellant

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

Date published: May 6, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

In re Weisberg

The Debtor makes an argument that, since the New York divorce action was voluntarily discontinued by the Wife…

Berson v. Berson

An examination of cases construing Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) is in order. In Taylor v. Taylor ( 120…