| Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07897 [55 AD3d 713] |
| October 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Carolyn D. Rosenbaum, Appellant, v Eric J. Rosenbaum,Respondent. |
—[*1] Warner Partners, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Rita Wasserstein Warner of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Westchester County (Lubell, J.), entered March 7, 2007, as granted that branch of thedefendant's motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband were married for almost five years and had two youngchildren at the time that the wife commenced this action in 2004. After two years of extensive litigation,the husband moved, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a), for an award of interimcounsel fees in the sum of $250,000.
While both parties are licensed physicians, the husband asserted, inter alia, that his "impoverished"financial condition required him to move into his parents' home and illustrated the "vast" disparity in theparties' financial condition. The wife claimed, inter alia, that she had virtually no monthly income fromany of the trusts or properties in which she holds an interest, and that the special needs of the parties'children and her physical limitations preclude her from practicing medicine. The Supreme Court grantedthe husband's motion to the extent of awarding him interim counsel fees in the sum of $75,000, withoutprejudice to the reallocation of the fees at the close of trial. We affirm.[*2]
An award of interim counsel fees is designed to create parity indivorce litigation by preventing a monied spouse from wearing down a nonmonied spouse on the basisof sheer financial strength (see O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; Wald v Wald, 44 AD3d 848 [2007]).The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding interim counsel fees, based on theapparent disparity in the parties' relative financial positions (see Domestic Relations Law§ 237; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61[2008]; Wald v Wald, 44 AD3d848 [2007]; Assini v Assini, 11AD3d 417, 419 [2004]; DelDuca v DelDuca, 304 AD2d 610, 611 [2003]; Celauro vCelauro, 257 AD2d 588 [1999]).
The wife's remaining contentions are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Mastro,J.P., Angiolillo, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.