Court Opinion

ID: 5946728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-13 06:05:23.660614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:28.563133
License: Public Domain

Amended order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered on or about April 9, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded plaintiff wife $61,300 in temporary attorney fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Upon considering the relevant factors, the court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in its award of counsel fees to plaintiff (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; Wechsler v Wechsler, 19 AD3d 157 [1st Dept 2005]). Nor did the award impose too great a financial burden on defendant husband under the circumstances (compare Maidman v Maidman, 82 AD3d 577 [1st Dept 2011]).
Furthermore, the award of interim counsel fees was supported by sufficient documentation and description of the work performed (compare Mimran v Mimran, 83 AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2011]). Although the wife does not dispute that she received one billing statement within an 18-month period, she did not object to the billing statement and thus waived her right to receive bills at least every 60 days (see Granato v Granato, 75 AD3d 434 [1st Dept 2010]; 22 NYCRR 1400.2). “It is the right of the client, not the adversary spouse, to be billed at least every 60 days, and the client may waive that right” *496(Petosa v Petosa, 56 AD3d 1296, 1298 [4th Dept 2008]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.