Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $45,000 and substituting therefor a provision awarding the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $25,000; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of an attorney's fee (see Miklos v Miklos, 21 A.D.3d 353, 354 [2005]; DeJesus v DeJesus, 264 A.D.2d 436 [1999]; Schussler v Schussler, 123 A.D.2d 618 [1986]). However, given the equities of this case and the parties' respective financial positions, we find that an attorney's fee to the plaintiff in the sum of $25,000 is appropriate (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881 [1987]; Benzaken v Benzaken, 21 A.D.3d 391, 392 [2005]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Comment
User Comments