Ahmed v. Ahmed

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Gruppuso v Caridi, 66 AD3d 838 [2009]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2008]). Prudenti, EJ., Rivera, Austin and Roman, JJ, concur.