Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof awarding compound interest of 1.5% per month on any untimely installment payments of the attorney's fee; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
An award of a reasonable attorney's fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881; Morrissey v. Morrissey, 259 AD2d 472, 473). Contrary to the contentions of the parties, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay a portion of the plaintiff's attorney's fee and expert fees ( see Klisivitch v. Klisivitch, 291 AD2d 433; Mitzner v. Mitzner, 271 AD2d 513; Tayar v. Tayar, 250 AD2d 757, 758; Feeney v. Feeney, 241 AD2d 510; Reehill v. Reehill, 181 AD2d 725, 726). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was properly permitted to pay the attorney's fee in installments ( see Romano v. Romano, 139 AD2d 979, 980; Allen v. Allen, 77 AD2d 558, 559).
However, we find that Supreme Court improperly awarded compound interest of 1.5% per month, which is at least twice the statutory rate of 9% per annum, on any untimely installment payments ( see Domestic Relations Law § 244; Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 AD2d 786; Manno v. Manno, 224 AD2d 395, 400).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.