WINTER v. WINTER

ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding the defendant the sum of $6,000 as an attorney's fee and substituting therefor a provision awarding her the sum of $5,000; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms of the judgment of divorce by failing to pay his pro rata share of the college expenses of the parties' son. As correctly noted by the court, the defendant provided documentary proof of the college expenses, which the plaintiff failed to refute.

The Supreme Court properly awarded the defendant an attorney's fee without first conducting a hearing, in light of the plaintiff's failure to either request a hearing or challenge the amount demanded ( see DiVittorio v. DiVittorio, 283 A.D.2d 390; Adinolfi v. Adinolfi, 168 A.D.2d 401; Gross v. Gross, 160 A.D.2d 976; Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 155 A.D.2d 428; Lynch v. Lynch, 97 A.D.2d 814). However, because the court determined that the attorney's fee should be limited to those amounts requested for work actually completed in this enforcement matter, and not estimated future work, the award of $6,000 for 20 hours of work at $250 per hour was incorrect, and is reduced to $5,000.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.