Kiprilova v. Kiprilov, 255 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Kiprilova v. Kiprilov, 255 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yezzi v. Small (nyappdiv, 2022-06-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yezzi v. Small
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Therefore, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing with respect to the mother's counsel fee application ( see Ferris v Ferris , 121 AD3d 1544, 1545 [2014]; Stanley v Hain , 38 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2007]; Kiprilova v Kiprilov , 255 AD2d 362, 363 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yezzi v. Small
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Therefore, we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing with respect to the mother's counsel fee application ( see Ferris v Ferris , 121 AD3d 1544, 1545 [2014]; Stanley v Hain , 38 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2007]; Kiprilova v Kiprilov , 255 AD2d 362, 363 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Volponi-Hotton v. Hotton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
It is well settled that the disposition of marital property, both the amount and the method, is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Kiprilova v Kiprilov, 255 AD2d 362, 363 [1998]; Filax v Filax, 176 AD2d 1194, 1195 [1991]), and “its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515 [1996]).
discussed Cited "see" Madden v. Cavanaugh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
However, the Family Court erred in making such an award without first conducting a hearing to explore the relative financial circumstances of the parties, and to give the father the opportunity to test “the [attorney’s] claims relative to time and value” (Patterson v Patterson, 302 AD2d 507, 508 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kiprilova v Kiprilov, 255 AD2d 362 [1998]; Petek v Petek, 239 AD2d 327 [1997]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Valentina Kiprilova
v.
Nikola Kiprilov
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 9, 1998.
255 A.D.2d 362
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11798
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 26, 1994, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated July 25, 1997, which, after a hearing on the economic issues of the marriage, directed that he (1) pay maintenance to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,000[*363] a month for 60 months, (2) transfer his interest in the parties’ apartment in Bulgaria to the plaintiff, and (3) pay all of the plaintiffs legal expenses.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs legal expenses; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of the amount of an award of an attorney’s fee, if any, to the plaintiff.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contentions that the distribution of the marital property was inequitable, or that the award of maintenance posed an unfair financial burden on him. The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution of the marital assets and in awarding maintenance (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B]; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481). Here, the distribution of the marital property was equitable. In awarding the plaintiff maintenance, the trial court found that the defendant had misrepresented his income. Based on that finding, the trial court reviewed the defendant’s financial records in evidence and awarded maintenance upon the review. We agree with the trial court’s determination. The award of maintenance reflects an appropriate balancing of the plaintiffs needs and the defendant’s ability to pay.

The plaintiff correctly concedes that the trial court erred in awarding her legal expenses without first conducting a hearing to explore the relative financial conditions of the parties, and the attorney’s claim for a fee (see, Price v Price, 113 AD2d 299, affd 69 NY2d 8). Even though the relative financial positions of the parties were examined at trial, the issue of an attorneys fee was not addressed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.