| Amante v Amante |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07872 [78 AD3d 622] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Amy Amante, Appellant, v Robert Amante,Respondent. |
—[*1] Miano & Colangelo, Harrison, N.Y. (Joseph R. Miano and Lauren K. Bilello of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so muchof an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), entered October 2, 2009, asgranted her motion for an award of interim counsel fees in the sum of $75,000 only to the extent ofawarding her the sum of $25,000.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise ofdiscretion, with costs, and the wife's motion for an award of interim counsel fees in the sum of $75,000is granted.
"An award of interim counsel fees ensures that the nonmonied spouse will be able to litigate theaction, and do so on equal footing with the monied spouse" (Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61, 65 [2008]). Courts "should normallyexercise their discretion to grant such a request made by the nonmonied spouse" (id. at 65).Here, the wife's request for an award of interim counsel fees in the sum of $75,000 was reasonableunder the circumstances, particularly in light of the evidence regarding comparable fees incurred by thehusband (see Mueller v Mueller, 61AD3d 652 [2009]; Penavic vPenavic, 60 AD3d 1026, 1029 [2009]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 66-67;Gober v Gober, 282 AD2d 392, 393 [2001]).
Contrary to the wife's contention, the order appealed from did not prospectively award thehusband a credit or offset in the amount of interim fees awarded to the wife, against any equitabledistribution which the wife may receive. The trial court determines "whether the fees should be chargedto the husband, or charged to the wife as an offset against the equitable distribution award she ultimatelyreceives, or divided between the parties" (Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d at 66; see Ciampa v Ciampa, 47 AD3d 745[2008]). The Supreme Court's order merely acknowledged the husband's right to request such a creditor offset at the ultimate trial of the divorce action. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Austin, JJ.,concur.