DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 9, 1999, is dismissed, because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment dated September 12, 2001, upon the order; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated July 16, 2001, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the Law Guardian payable by the appellant.
Although we have the authority in our "discretion, when the interests of justice so demand" to treat the notice of appeal from the order dated August 9, 1999, as a premature notice of appeal from the judgment dated September 12, 2001 (CPLR 5520[c]; see Scott v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 133 A.D.2d 76, 77; Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 524, at 855 [3d ed]; cf. 22 NYCRR 670.8[e]), we decline to do so under the circumstances of this case.
With respect to the order dated July 16, 2001, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in requiring the defendant husband to pay one-half of the Law Guardian's fees ( see Pascarelli v. Pascarelli, 283 A.D.2d 472; Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 270 A.D.2d 242; Petek v. Petek, 239 A.D.2d 327, 329; Cilento v. Cilento, 225 A.D.2d 648; Hughes v. Hughes, 224 A.D.2d 389) . In doing so, the Supreme Court did not violate the doctrine of the law of the case ( see Latture v. Smith, 304 A.D.2d 534, 535; Kennedy v. Children's Hosp. of Buffalo, 303 A.D.2d 937; Brothers v. Bunkoff Gen. Contrs., 296 A.D.2d 764, 765; Matter of Rappaport, 150 A.D.2d 779, 780). Moreover, the amount of fees awarded to the Law Guardian was appropriate, particularly since a hearing was held ( see Stephens v. Stephens, 249 A.D.2d 191; Rotta v. Rotta, 233 A.D.2d 152).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, S. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.