Karg v. Kern

• Decision Date: 19 February 2015
• Citation: 4 N.Y.S.3d 184,125 A.D.3d 527,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01550
• Parties: Nathalie KARG, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Anton KERN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

125 A.D.3d 527

4 N.Y.S.3d 184

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01550

Nathalie KARG, Plaintiff–Respondent

v.Anton KERN, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 19, 2015.

Law Offices of Stark & Levoritz, P.C., Brooklyn (Yonatan S. Levoritz and Steven Amshen of counsel), for appellant.

The McPherson Firm, P.C., New York (Laurie J. McPherson of counsel), for respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered April 3, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff wife's application for interim counsel fees in the amount of $136,000, and directed defendant husband to pay the real estate taxes on the parties' farm property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Order, same court and Justice, entered June 5, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant's motion to hold plaintiff in contempt, to dismiss the claims related to the prenuptial agreement, and to modify the support award, and granted plaintiff's motions to stay defendant's plenary action and consolidate it with this action, to vacate the automatic stay of the April 3, 2014 order awarding counsel fees, and for an additional award of counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly awarded the wife interim counsel fees after considering the financial positions of the parties and the circumstances of the case(seeDomestic Relations Law § 237;DeCabrera v. Cabrera–Rosete,70 N.Y.2d 879, 524 N.Y.S.2d 176, 518 N.E.2d 1168[1987] ).Plaintiff was the less monied spouse, the disparity between the parties' respective income and assets was significant.

To the extent the legal fees awarded in the April 3, 2014 order may have related to the litigation over the parties' prenuptial agreement (there is no indication that they were so related), and to the extent the court awarded fees in connection with that litigation in its June 5, 2014 order, the awards were proper.Plaintiff was not precluded from recovering legal fees under Domestic Relations Law § 237 for services provided in opposing defendant's affirmative defense predicated on the prenuptial agreement (seeVan Kipnis v. Van Kipnis,11 N.Y.3d 573, 579, 872 N.Y.S.2d 426, 900 N.E.2d 977[2008] ).

The court properly directed defendant to pay the real estate taxes on the parties' farm property to preserve that asset for equitable distribution (seeRosenshein v. Rosenshein,211 A.D.2d 456, 620 N.Y.S.2d 383[1st Dept.1995] ).At the time that the court issued its previous pendente lite support award, the issue of the real estate taxes was not raised by either party.

The court correctly denied the part of defendant's motion seeking a downward modification of the support award since defendant failed to attach a statement of net worth (22 NYCRR 202.16 [k][2] ).In any event, defendant failed to show exigent circumstances or that the court failed to consider the relevant factors (seeStrauss v. Saadatmand,89 A.D.3d 415, 931 N.Y.S.2d 611[1st Dept.2011] ).

The court properly denied the part of defendant's motion seeking to hold plaintiff in contempt since defendant failed to show that plaintiff had violated a clear and unequivocal mandate of the court or that he was prejudiced by the actions of which he complains (seeMatter of McCormick v. Axelrod,59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, 466 N.Y.S.2d 279, 453 N.E.2d 508[1983] ).Given the deeply damaged relationship between defendant and his 14–year–old son, following an incident of violence that occurred in July 2013, defendant cannot show that he was prejudiced by remarks plaintiff may...