GOBER v. GOBER


282 A.D.2d 392 (2001)

724 N.Y.S.2d 48

RACHELL M. GOBER, Appellant, v. IRA L. GOBER, Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided April 26, 2001.


Plaintiff sought $159,755 in interim counsel fees and $106,629 in expert fees in order to adequately prepare for trial. Supreme Court denied the motion, noting that it was brought a mere three months after plaintiff had been awarded $150,000 for legal expenses and $70,000 for expert fees, which awards "specifically took into account plaintiff's need to prepare for trial." At the time of her application, plaintiff had already received interim fee awards of $415,000 for her attorneys and $128,500 for the services of experts.

It is acknowledged by defendant husband's present counsel that they have received some $745,000 for representing him. There is nothing in the record to indicate how much defendant's former counsel was paid. This is a case where plaintiff's assets are confined to her monthly maintenance, while her husband's wealth is in the millions and his assets continue to amass (Charpie v Charpie, 271 A.D.2d 169, 171). Thus, the additional amount sought by plaintiff pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) is appropriate "to prevent the more affluent spouse from wearing down or financially punishing the opposition by recalcitrance, or by prolonging the litigation" (O'Shea v O'Shea, 93 N.Y.2d 187, 193).

We concur in Supreme Court's assessment that defendant has spent a "staggering sum" on this case and that plaintiff has been no less contentious than her husband: "Although each accuses the other of unnecessarily driving up the costs of this litigation, it is not readily apparent at this point that either party bears sole responsibility in this regard" (order entered Aug. 15, 2000). In keeping with the nature of interim fee awards, the extent to which the latest such award is to be charged against plaintiff's anticipated equitable distribution is entrusted to the sound discretion of Supreme Court.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases