Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff husband, the Supreme Court did not err in awarding counsel fees to the defendant wife without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The record discloses that the parties stipulated that the issue of counsel fees was to be decided on the submission of papers, and the submitted documents were sufficient to permit a proper determination of the wife's entitlement to an award of counsel fees (see, Wolfer v Wolfer, 176 A.D.2d 315; Lancaster v Lancaster, 141 A.D.2d 701; Choy v Choy, 137 A.D.2d 784; Melone v Melone, 113 A.D.2d 745; Olsan v Olsan, 100 A.D.2d 776). Moreover, in view of the respective financial positions of the parties, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in requiring the husband to pay $5,500 of the legal expenses incurred by the wife in defending this action (see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879; Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu, 177 A.D.2d 614; Hackett v Hackett, 147 A.D.2d 611). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.