Font Size: 
Big-Firm Salary Costs Husband Interim Attorney Fees in Divorce Case
New York Law Journal
October 21, 2008
In a bitter Brooklyn divorce proceeding, a New York Supreme Court judge has refused to award interim attorney fees to the defendant-husband, citing his high income as a lawyer.
"The court, at this juncture, is loathe to find an associate at a major New York City firm who admits to working 40 hour per weeks and earning $200,000.00 in 2007, a non-monied spouse entitled to pendente lite counsel fees," Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine ruled in A.L. v. C.K.
The judge also ordered the husband's therapist to hand over his treatment notes for in camera inspection, finding that the husband himself had already entered his therapist's opinions into the proceedings.
The couple married in August 1988 and resided in Brooklyn's Park Slope area, where they raised three children, according to the decision.
The plaintiff-wife, A.L., is a 36-year-old theology professor who wants to relocate with the children to Pittsburgh, where she has a job offer. She earns $47,500 per year and is the beneficiary of a family trust that paid her just over $306,000 in 2007.
The husband, C.K., is a 50-year-old tax associate at a Manhattan-based international law firm. He works part-time, last year earning $200,000.
In the present decision, Sunshine rejected the husband's motion for interim attorney fees and granted the wife's motion for an order requiring the therapist to produce his notes.
In eschewing the holding in the recent Appellate Division, 2nd Department, decision Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, which held that courts "should normally exercise their discretion to grant such [pendente lite requests] made by the nonmonied spouse, in the absence of good cause," Justice Sunshine cited the husband's employment and earnings.
The judge also noted that the husband contributed $20,500 to his 401(k) in 2007, the maximum contribution for people 50 and older.
In her motion, the wife sought disclosure of her husband's treatment, either via deposition or by production of the therapist's notes. She contended that her desire to move to Pittsburgh is based in part on C.K.'s violent behavior and alcohol abuse, and that he had already opened the door to his therapist's opinions.
"[T]he husband has placed the issue before the court himself, by submitting a letter from his social worker to support his proposition" that he suffers merely from treatable anxiety, not alcoholism, Sunshine wrote. "It would be inherently unfair to allow him to use this to support his position without allowing the opposing counsel an opportunity to rebut same."
Carrie Anne Cavallo of Fee Schpoont & Cavallo represented the husband. She said that her client does not intend to appeal.
Robert Zeif of Dobrish Zeif Gross & Wrubel, who represented the wife, said, "An attorney who is earning what [C.K. earns] should not be considered a non-monied spouse."
Brad Nacht of Brooklyn represented the couple's children.
"The court, at this juncture, is loathe to find an associate at a major New York City firm who admits to working 40 hour per weeks and earning $200,000.00 in 2007, a non-monied spouse entitled to pendente lite counsel fees," Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine ruled in A.L. v. C.K.
The judge also ordered the husband's therapist to hand over his treatment notes for in camera inspection, finding that the husband himself had already entered his therapist's opinions into the proceedings.
The couple married in August 1988 and resided in Brooklyn's Park Slope area, where they raised three children, according to the decision.
The plaintiff-wife, A.L., is a 36-year-old theology professor who wants to relocate with the children to Pittsburgh, where she has a job offer. She earns $47,500 per year and is the beneficiary of a family trust that paid her just over $306,000 in 2007.
The husband, C.K., is a 50-year-old tax associate at a Manhattan-based international law firm. He works part-time, last year earning $200,000.
In the present decision, Sunshine rejected the husband's motion for interim attorney fees and granted the wife's motion for an order requiring the therapist to produce his notes.
In eschewing the holding in the recent Appellate Division, 2nd Department, decision Prichep v. Prichep, 52 A.D.3d 61, which held that courts "should normally exercise their discretion to grant such [pendente lite requests] made by the nonmonied spouse, in the absence of good cause," Justice Sunshine cited the husband's employment and earnings.
The judge also noted that the husband contributed $20,500 to his 401(k) in 2007, the maximum contribution for people 50 and older.
In her motion, the wife sought disclosure of her husband's treatment, either via deposition or by production of the therapist's notes. She contended that her desire to move to Pittsburgh is based in part on C.K.'s violent behavior and alcohol abuse, and that he had already opened the door to his therapist's opinions.
"[T]he husband has placed the issue before the court himself, by submitting a letter from his social worker to support his proposition" that he suffers merely from treatable anxiety, not alcoholism, Sunshine wrote. "It would be inherently unfair to allow him to use this to support his position without allowing the opposing counsel an opportunity to rebut same."
Carrie Anne Cavallo of Fee Schpoont & Cavallo represented the husband. She said that her client does not intend to appeal.
Robert Zeif of Dobrish Zeif Gross & Wrubel, who represented the wife, said, "An attorney who is earning what [C.K. earns] should not be considered a non-monied spouse."
Brad Nacht of Brooklyn represented the couple's children.
