653757/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: not recover for counsel’s 13.8 hours of work on a motion which was, at the outset, improper.2 MOTION SEQUENCES 002 & 003 Plaintiff’s next motion, sequence 002, sought leave to file an amended complaint adding a defendant under the theory of piercing a corporate veil. Plaintiff should -3- 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11:51 AM NYSCEF DOC. Accordingly, that motion was denied as improper. determined plaintiff’s order to show cause for provisional relief was, in actuality, an improper attempt to secure ultimate relief pled in its complaint. MOTION SEQUENCE 001 In denying plaintiff’s motion sequence 001, the learned Hon. The Court, for the sake of clarity, addresses each motion which defendants contend attorneys’ fees should not be awarded separately. However, where a motion is meritless, needlessly filed, or otherwise unreasonable or unproductive, the Court may deny attorney’s fees for work performed in connection with such motion (see generally JK Two LLC v. The mere denial of a motion does not amount to a finding that a motion was meritless or unreasonably brought sufficient to deny attorneys’ fees for same (see generally Hernandez v. Finally, defendants contend that the hourly rate sought by plaintiff’s counsel, $650/hr is exorbitant. Defendants also allege plaintiff seeks to recover for work performed in a related but separate action in Landlord-Tenant court. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: motions were denied. 653757/2020 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11:51 AM NYSCEF DOC. In opposition, defendants contend plaintiff should not be award attorneys’ fees on plaintiff’s motions sequences 001, 002, 003, and 004, as those -2- 2 of 9 INDEX NO. Notwithstanding plaintiff’s counsel’s in-house status, counsel avers records were kept outlining the time and work performed by counsel in this matter and counsel has annexed timesheets of same (NYSCEF Doc. Plaintiff was represented in this matter by in-house counsel. Off West Broadway Developers, 224 AD2d 376 ). In determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees, the Court considers the attorney’s affidavit and submissions to elicit the “difficulty of the issues and the skill required to resolve them the lawyers’ experience, ability and reputation the time and labor required the amount involved and benefit resulting to the client from the services the customary fee charged for similar services the contingency or certainty of compensation the results obtained and the responsibility involved” (Bankers Federal Sav. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: Where attorney fees are authorized, either by statute or agreement, the fee sought must be reasonable where the fee is unreasonable, inflated, or needlessly incurred, the Court may dismiss the claim for attorney’s fees (American Motorists Ins. Accordingly, the Court has considered defendants’ opposition. Defendants’ opposition is untimely however, defense counsel’s excuse for same is reasonable, namely illness, and the less than one-week delay does not prejudice any party. Defendants did not request cross-examination.1 This Decision and Order following inquest results. Upon assignment, this Court directed that the inquest proceed on paper submissions, absent a request for cross-examination by defendants (NYSCEF Doc. The inquest in this matter was, thereafter, administratively assigned to this Court. NERVO, J: Following summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, judgment was entered against defendants in the amount of $321,116.74 on Decemhowever, the amount of attorneys’ fees due plaintiff was referred to the Special Referee Part to conduct an inquest on same (NYSCEF Doc. 653757/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM PART IV -X PARK TOWERS SOUTH COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- DECISION FOLLOWING INQUEST COLUMBUS CIRCLE PARKING, LLC, and Index No. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11:51 AM NYSCEF DOC. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. Nervo Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. Co., LLC v Columbus Circle Parking, LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 31052(U) ApSupreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |