| Matter of Westergaard v Westergaard |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03494 [106 AD3d 926] |
| May 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Aaron Westergaard,Appellant, v Kerin Westergaard, Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appealsfrom an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated September 26,2012, which denied his objection to an order of the same court (Parisi, S.M.) dated July2, 2012, which granted his motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 (a) for anaward of an attorney's fee only to the extent of awarding him the sum of $1,000.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Support Magistrate providently exercised her discretion in granting the father'smotion pursuant to Family Court Act § 438 (a) for an award of an attorney's feeonly to the extent of awarding him the sum of $1,000. "[T]he award of reasonablecounsel fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court" (Matter of Grald v Grald, 33AD3d 922, 923 [2006]; seeMatter of Sarfaty v Recine, 57 AD3d 552 [2008]). The factors to be consideredin computing an appropriate award include the parties' ability to pay, the merits of theparties' positions, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the complexity of theissues involved, and the reasonableness of counsel's performance and the fees under thecircumstances (see Matter ofDinhofer v Zabezhanskaya, 79 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2010]; Matter of Nieves-Ford vGordon, 47 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]; Matter of Musarra v Musarra, 28 AD3d 668, 669 [2006];Matter of Finell v Finell, 25AD3d 703, 704 [2006]; Giuffrida v Giuffrida, 81 AD2d 905, 906 [1981]).Under the totality of the circumstances, including the mother's limited income, the awardof limited counsel fees to the father was appropriate. Accordingly, the Family Courtproperly denied the father's objection to the Support Magistrate's order. Skelos, J.P.,Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.