From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wasserman v. Eisenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 30, 2003
309 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2030, 2031

October 30, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about August 15, 2002, which awarded plaintiff-wife attorney's fees and disbursements in the principal amount of $13,164.74, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered thereon on September 26, 2002, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

David A. Field, for plaintiff-respondent.

Arthur Morrison, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams, JJ.


Since the husband failed to request a hearing, he waived his present argument that a hearing is necessary to determine the appropriate allocation of attorney's fees (see Adler v. Adler, 203 A.D.2d 81, 82;Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 155 A.D.2d 428, 432 ). In any event, in view of the parties' respective financial positions, the court properly exercised its discretion in ordering the husband to pay the wife's attorney's fees (see Charpie v. Charpie, 271 A.D.2d 169, 171).

The record supports the court's determination that the fee request was reasonable. Following a prior decision by this Court ( 287 A.D.2d 227, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 913), the husband made an unsuccessful motion before this Court for reargument and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and then an unsuccessful motion before the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal. The record establishes that the wife's attorney expended considerable time and effort in defending against these motions, particularly since the husband raised complex issues, some of which had not been previously raised before this Court or before Supreme Court. The fact that the wife's attorney submitted a short, concise brief to the Court of Appeals does not warrant a different conclusion.

We have considered and rejected the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Wasserman v. Eisenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 30, 2003
309 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Wasserman v. Eisenberg

Case Details

Full title:RANDIE WASSERMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PHILIP EISENBERG…

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

Date published: Oct 30, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 709 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 546

Citing Cases

Weiner v. Weiner

Thus, we find here that, in contrast to those cases where a party was entitled to continue receiving certain…