Romeo v. Muenzler-Romeo
| Decision Date | 13 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2017–10149,Index No. 1687/14 |
| Citation | 169 A.D.3d 845,94 N.Y.S.3d 121 |
| Parties | Carmine ROMEO, Appellant, v. Debra MUENZLER–ROMEO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
169 A.D.3d 845
94 N.Y.S.3d 121
Carmine ROMEO, Appellant,
v.
Debra MUENZLER–ROMEO, Respondent.
2017–10149
Index No. 1687/14
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—October 25, 2018
February 13, 2019
Law Office of Gambino & Demers, LLC, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Thomas M. Gambino of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of David J. Squirrell, P.C., Bedford Hills, NY, for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Lisa E. Rubenstein, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 3, 2017. The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of the same court dated March 6, 2017, made after a nonjury trial, awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $ 1,900 per month for a period of eight years and attorneys' fees in the sum of $ 26,000.
ORDERED that the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties were married on August 31, 1995. At the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was retired from the New York City Police Department and receiving a pension. During the marriage, the plaintiff was employed part-time, and the defendant worked as a substitute teacher. In April 2014, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief. After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court issued a judgment of divorce dated August 3, 2017, which, among other things, awarded the defendant maintenance in the sum of $ 1,900 per month for a period of eight years and attorneys' fees in the sum of $ 26,000. The plaintiff appeals from those portions of the judgment of divorce.
"[T]he amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and every case must be determined on its own unique facts" ( Wortman v. Wortman, 11 A.D.3d 604, 606, 783 N.Y.S.2d 631 ; see Westbrook v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Klein v. Klein
...directing the defendant to pay $100,000 in attorney's fees directly to the plaintiff's attorney's law firm (see Romeo v. Muenzler–Romeo , 169 A.D.3d 845, 846, 94 N.Y.S.3d 121 ; Belilos v. Rivera , 164 A.D.3d at 1415, 84 N.Y.S.3d 536 ; Babinski v. Babinski , 152 A.D.3d 477, 478, 58 N.Y.S.3d ......
-
Ford v. Ford
...discretionary authority is as broad as the trial court's in determining an appropriate award of counsel fees (see Romeo v. Muenzler–Romeo, 169 A.D.3d 845, 846, 94 N.Y.S.3d 121 ). Here, as the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of counsel fe......
- Sclafani v. Kahn
- Rhodes v. Rhodes