| Davis-Potente v Potente |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01768 [60 AD3d 720] |
| March 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Laurie Ann Davis-Potente, Appellant, v Saverio P.Potente, Respondent. Law Offices of Russell I. Marnell, P.C., NonpartyAppellant. |
—[*1] Glenn S. Koopersmith, Garden City, N.Y. (Gregory Rabinowitz of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a money judgment ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated November 7, 2007, and the nonparty LawOffices of Russell I. Marnell, P.C., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much ofthe same money judgment, as upon an order of the same court dated October 1, 2007, grantingthat branch of its motion which was for an interim attorney's fee, awarded it an interim attorney'sfee in the sum of only $10,000, and failed to award disbursements.
Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal of the Law Offices of Russell I.Marnell, P.C., from the order dated October 1, 2007, is deemed to be a premature notice ofappeal from the money judgment dated November 7, 2007 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it isfurther,
Ordered that the money judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the nonpartyRussell I. Marnell, P.C.; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent payable by the nonpartyappellant.[*2]
Contrary to the contention of the nonparty appellant, theSupreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding an interim attorney's feein the sum of only $10,000 (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; O'Shea vO'Shea, 93 NY2d 187 [1999]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2008]; Silver v Silver, 46 AD3d 667[2007]; Salerno v Salerno, 142 AD2d 670 [1988]). The amount was sufficient to ensurethat the nonmonied wife was able to litigate the action on equal footing with the monied husband(see O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187 [1999]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2008]).
The nonparty appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florioand Miller, JJ., concur.