Hatch v Hatch

Annotate this Case
Hatch v Hatch 2013 NY Slip Op 08049 Decided on December 4, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 4, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
L. PRISCILLA HALL
SHERI S. ROMAN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2012-05398
(Index No. 22089/07)

[*1]Kerry Hatch, respondent,

v

Edward Hatch, appellant.




Banks Curran Schwam & Squirrell, LLP, Mount Kisco, N.Y.
(David J. Squirrell of counsel), for appellant.
Glenn S. Koopersmith, Garden City, N.Y., for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 14, 2010, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), entered April 11, 2012, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's cross motion which was for an award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 238, and denied that branch of his motion which was for the same relief as to him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of his motion which was for an award of counsel fees and granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of counsel fees, in light of the defendant's recalcitrance and obstructionist tactics, which unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and increased the legal fees incurred by the plaintiff (see Domestic Relations Law § 238; Le v Le, 82 AD3d 846; Schiffer v Schiffer, 55 AD3d 714, 715).
RIVERA, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.