Lodovico v Lodovico
2008 NY Slip Op 04475 [51 AD3d 731]
May 13, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


Alysen Lodovico, Respondent,
v
Marcus J. Lodovico,Appellant.

[*1]Mansfield & Serpe, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Matthew S. Mansfield of counsel), forappellant.

Behrins & Behrins, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Susan R. Schneider of counsel), forrespondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of theSupreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.), dated September 8, 2006, which denied his motion,inter alia, to impose a sanction against the plaintiff's counsel, and (2) an order of the same court(Friedenberg, J.H.O.) dated September 25, 2006, which, after a hearing held upon the stipulationof the parties, granted the plaintiff's motion for an attorney's fee to the extent of awarding her thesum of $15,000.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

"The evaluation of what constitutes reasonable counsel fees is a matter within the sounddiscretion of the trial court" (Lefkowitz v Van Ess, 166 AD2d 556 [1990]; citingDeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). The trial court is in the bestposition to judge the factors integral to determining counsel fees, such as the time, effort, andskill required (see Feldman v Feldman, 194 AD2d 207, 219 [1993]). Moreover, "[a] courtmust consider the equities and circumstances of each particular case and their respective financialpositions in determining a counsel fee application" (Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004]).

Here, the plaintiff adduced evidence demonstrating that she was entitled to an attorney's feein the sum of $15,000 for successfully opposing the defendant's motions to reduce his childsupport [*2]obligations. In view of this evidence, the SupremeCourt providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for an attorney's fee tothe extent of awarding her the sum of $15,000.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Lifson andLeventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.