| Matter of Friedman v Rome |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02841 [49 AD3d 878] |
| March 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Amanda Friedman, Formerly Known as AmandaVan Holt, Respondent, v David S. Rome, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert N. Nelson, Baldwin, N.Y. (Kimberly I. Nelson of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order ofthe Family Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), dated February 21, 2007, which, in effect,denied that branch of his motion which was to direct the mother to pay his one-half share of thefees of the court-appointed forensic expert and granted that branch of his motion which was foran award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of awarding him an attorney's fee in the sum of$10,000.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"The award of reasonable counsel fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the trialcourt" (Walker v Walker, 255 AD2d 375, 376 [1998]). It " 'is to be based on the financialcircumstances of the parties and the circumstances of the case as a whole, which may include therelative merit of the parties' positions, but should not be predicated solely on who won and wholost' " (Matter of Sullivan v Sullivan, 40 AD3d 865, 867 [2007], quoting Matter ofO'Neil v O'Neil, 193 AD2d 16, 20 [1993]).
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the mother to pay only aportion of the father's attorney's fees. The Family Court's award of an attorney's fee in the sum of$10,000 was in addition to a previous award of an attorney's fee in the sum of $8,800, made tothe father pursuant to an order of the same court dated July 24, 2006. Given the circumstances ofthis case, including the relative merits of the parties' positions, and their respective financialcircumstances, the award of an attorney's fee to the father in the total sum of $18,800 wasappropriate (see Domestic Relations Law § 237; Miklos v Miklos, 21AD3d 353 [2005]; Klisivitch v [*2]Klisivitch, 291 AD2d433 [2002]; Feeney v Feeney, 241 AD2d 510, 511 [1997]).
Further, the court providently exercised its discretion in allocating to him 50% of the forensicexpert's fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; Bluemer v Bluemer,47 AD3d 652, 653 [2008]; Matter of Mohammad v Mohammad, 23 AD3d 476, 477[2005]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.