| Green v Silver |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09887 [79 AD3d 1097] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Beth Green, Formerly Known as Beth G. Silver,Plaintiff, v Richard I. Silver, Appellant. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Flowers,Greenberg & Eisman, LLP, Nonparty Respondent. |
—[*1] Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Greenberg, Formato & Einiger, LLP, LakeSuccess, N.Y. (Mitchell H. Levitin and Samuel J. Ferrara of counsel), nonpartyrespondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 11, 2006,the defendant appeals from a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ross, J.),dated July 30, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 3, 2008, made aftera hearing, granting that branch of the motion of his former counsel, Abrams, Fensterman,Fensterman, Flowers, Greenberg & Eisman, LLP, which was to fix an attorney's fee in theamount of $23,743.72, is in favor of Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Flowers, Greenberg &Eisman, LLP, and against him in the principal sum of $23,743.72.
Ordered that the money judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, the court must consider such factorsas the time, effort, and skill required; the difficulty of the questions presented; counsel'sexperience, ability, and reputation; the fee customarily charged in the locality; and thecontingency or certainty of compensation (see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974];Matter of Gaffney v Village ofMamaroneck, 21 AD3d 1032 [2005]; Matter of Santemma v Chasco Co., 261AD2d 408 [1999]). The defendant did not dispute the reasonableness of the fees sought by hisformer counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in awardingcounsel fees in the sum of $23,743.72.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant's expertfrom testifying at the hearing, since the matter about which he would have testified would nothave assisted the court in making its determination (see generally Kulak v Nationwide Mut.Ins. Co., 40 NY2d 140 [1976]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo andAustin, JJ., concur.