Court Opinion

ID: 5841645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 23:16:06.817133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:47.640659
License: Public Domain

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the motion of the plaintiff wife for an award of an interim attorney’s fee (see Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879 [1987]; Prichep v Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 [2008]).
The defendant husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.