SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5567-16T3

GABRIELLE TITO ABDELHAK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

YAAKOV ABDELHAK,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

Submitted November 26, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Haas.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FM-02-0538-05.

The Salvo Law Firm, PC, attorneys for appellant 

(Karen N. Grayson-Rodgers, on the briefs).

Weinstein Lindemann & Weinstein, PC, attorneys for 

respondent Gabrielle Tito Abdelhak (Jeffrey P. 

Weinstein, of counsel and on the brief; Rachel Zakarin 

and Kelscey A. Boyle, on the brief).

Respondent Linda Schofel has not filed a brief.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 4, 2018
2

A-5567-16T3

PER CURIAM

In this post-judgment divorce case, defendant Yaakov Abdelhak, M.D., 

appeals the Family Part's July 27, 2017 order granting attorney's fees to his 

former wife, plaintiff Gabrielle Tito Abdelhak. Plaintiff incurred the counsel 

fees in connection with motion practice and a plenary hearing arising from 

defendant's failure to pay his share of the charges of a parenting coordinator. 

The parenting coordinator had been appointed by the court to aid in 

resolving the parties' bitter disputes over various matters concerning their 

children. The court ultimately ordered defendant to pay his share of the 

parenting coordinator's charges, a determination he has not pressed on appeal.

Defendant argues the counsel fee awarded to plaintiff's attorney, however, 

was excessive and unfair. Among other things, he contends plaintiff's motion 

to compel payment to the parenting coordinator, after the coordinator herself 

had presented the non-payment issue to the court, was improper; the presence of 

plaintiff's counsel at the plenary hearing was redundant and unnecessary; and 

portions of the fee award improperly included compensation for attorney time 

spent on non-prevailing issues or on matters unrelated to the hearing.1

 

1 Defendant does not contest, however, opposing counsel's reduced hourly rate 

that the court utilized in the fee calculation.
3

A-5567-16T3

Our scope of review is limited. We will not disturb a counsel fee award 

in a matrimonial case under Rule 4:42-9(a)(1) and Rule 5:3-5(c) except "on the 

'rarest occasion,' and then only because of clear abuse of discretion." Strahan v. 

Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 317 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Rendine v. Pantzer, 

141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995)). 

Defendant has demonstrated no such abuse of discretion here, nor any 

misapplication of the law. We affirm the fee award in its entirety, substantially 

on the grounds articulated in the Family Part judge's detailed written opinion. 

The judge meticulously applied the factors under Rule 5:3-5(c) and requirements 

of Rule 4:42-9(b), with the beneficial perspective of having presided over the 

plenary hearing in which the counsel fees were incurred. 

The judge sensibly rejected defendant's argument that the presence of 

plaintiff's counsel at the plenary hearing was redundant. Plaintiff had an obvious 

financial interest in having her rights protected by her counsel at the hearing, as 

the parties debated the proper apportionment of the parenting coordinator fees 

between them. The transcripts clearly reflect that plaintiff's counsel performed 

an active and justified advocacy role at the hearing.

We need not comment on defendant's remaining points, which plainly lack 

merit as well. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
4

A-5567-16T3

Affirmed.

.