| Quinn v Quinn |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04164 [73 AD3d 887] |
| May 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Erin Quinn, Respondent, v William Quinn,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.H.O.), entered May 8, 2009, asawarded the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $9,000.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
An award of an attorney's fee pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) is amatter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Stadok vStadok, 25 AD3d 547 [2006]; Herzog v Herzog, 18 AD3d 707, 709 [2005]). The issue of such afee " 'is controlled by the equities and circumstances of each particular case' " (Gruppuso v Caridi, 66 AD3d 838,839 [2009], quoting Morrissey v Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472, 473 [1999]). In itsdetermination of an attorney's fee application within the context of a matrimonial action, the trialcourt must consider, inter alia, the relative financial circumstances of the parties (see Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d61 [2008]; Timpone vTimpone, 28 AD3d 646 [2006]; Popelaski v Popelaski, 22 AD3d 735 [2005]). The determinationan attorney's fee can also be affected by the consideration of whether either party has engaged inconduct or taken positions resulting in a delay of the proceedings or unnecessary litigation (see Matter of Brink v Brink, 55 AD3d601 [2008]; Prichep v Prichep,52 AD3d 61 [2008]; Grumet vGrumet, 37 AD3d 534 [2007]).
Here the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in awarding anattorney's fee to the plaintiff. Although the parties are on relatively equal financial footing, therecord discloses that, but for the defendant's conduct in this case, the plaintiff would not haveincurred significant legal fees (seeMatter of Brink v Brink, 55 AD3d 601 [2008]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2008]; Saslow v Saslow,305 AD2d 487 [2003]; see also Baron vBaron, 71 AD3d 807 [2010]). Accordingly, an award of an attorney's fee was warranted(see Denholz v Denholz, 147 AD2d 522 [1989]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Belen andChambers, JJ., concur.