Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

Bengard v. Bengard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 1, 2004

5 A.D.3d 340; 772 N.Y.S.2d 526

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Nieves-Iglesias v. Iglesias (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Zaydenverg v. Zaydenverg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Fishman v. Solomon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Feng Lucy Luo v. Yang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Rubio v. Rubio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Tuglu v. Crowley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Tuglu v. Crowley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Kotsonis v. Notias (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Pascarella v. Pascarella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Schwartz v. Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Schwartz v. Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Powers v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Curatola v. Curatola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Schwartz v. Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Pfluger v. Pfluger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Messinger v. Messinger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Sieratzki v. Sieratzki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lebowitz, J.), dated March 11, 2003, which upon the granting, without a hearing, of the defendant’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee, is in favor of the defendant’s attorney and against the plaintiff in the principal sum of $8,000, *341and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated April 25, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, to direct the payment of the attorney’s fee from the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff failed to request a hearing with regard to the value and extent of the services of the defendant’s attorney or raise any objections to the submission of the issue of an award of an attorney’s fee based on papers. Consequently, he waived his right to a hearing on this issue (see Krutyansky v Krutyansky, 289 AD2d 299 [2001]; Roshevsky v Roshevsky, 267 AD2d 293 [1999]; Reehill v Reehill, 181 AD2d 725 [1992]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in light of the plaintiffs tactics, which unnecessarily prolonged the litigation (see Krigsman v Krigsman, 288 AD2d 189 [2001]; Kalinich v Kalinich, 234 AD2d 344 [1996]; Suydam v Suydam, 203 AD2d 806 [1994]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.