Panos v. Panos

2025 NY Slip Op 06818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York First Department 2025) · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department · December 9, 2025 · No. Index No. 365148/21; Appeal Nos. 5140-5141; Case Nos. 2025-02624, 2025-03519

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a $1 million interim counsel-fee award to the wife, finding a significant financial disparity between the parties and no requirement that she first spend down her assets. The court vacated directives requiring the husband to pay all family expenses and modified the order to apply the parties’ prenuptial agreement to the distribution of remaining marital property. It also reversed the vacatur of the automatic stay and vacated a separate $40,000 counsel-fee award.

Holdings

  1. The court properly exercised its discretion in awarding the wife $1 million in interim counsel fees subject to reallocation after trial because she was the less monied spouse and there was a significant financial disparity between the parties.
  2. A hearing was not required because the award was interim and subject to reallocation at the end of the case.
  3. Supreme Court improperly directed the husband to continue paying all family expenses for the duration of the litigation; that provision was vacated.
  4. The order was modified to apply the prenuptial agreement's procedures for distributing the parties' remaining marital property, and the parties were directed to comply with those terms.
  5. The order vacating the automatic stay and awarding the wife $40,000 in counsel fees was reversed, and the fee award was vacated.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the wife was entitled to an interim counsel-fee award despite her substantial assets and income and despite having already paid the fees.
  2. Whether a hearing was required on the interim counsel-fee application.
  3. Whether Supreme Court could direct the husband to pay all family expenses during the litigation despite the prenuptial agreement and the absence of an application or order for pendente lite child support or maintenance.
  4. Whether the prenuptial agreement required use of its contractual procedures rather than appraisals for distributing the parties' remaining marital personal property.
  5. Whether the $40,000 counsel-fee award associated with the motion to vacate the automatic stay should stand.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Ader v. Ader, 205 AD3d 637 (1st Dept 2022)(followed)
  • Prichep v. Prichep, 52 AD3d 61 (2d Dept 2008)(followed)
  • Wolinsky v. Berkowitz, 227 AD3d 433 (1st Dept 2024)(followed)
  • O'Shea v. O'Shea, 93 NY2d 187 (1999)(followed)
  • Matter of Balber v. Zealand, 169 AD3d 500 (1st Dept 2019)(followed)
  • Babbio v. Babbio, 119 AD3d 474 (1st Dept 2014)(followed)
  • Khaira v. Khaira, 93 AD3d 194 (1st Dept 2012)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…