1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus

52 A.D.3d 248, 857 N.Y.S.2d 910

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 5, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 248 (1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus, 52 A.D.3d 248, 857 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J), entered April 25, 2007, awarding plaintiff legal fees and costs in the amount of $34,269.99, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee considered the relevant factors in determining reasonable attorney fees (see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]), and his findings are supported by the record (see Barrett v Toroyan, 45 AD3d 301 [2007]). Time sheets of the nontestifying attorneys were properly admitted as business records; applicability of the hearsay exception was unchallenged. “Fees on fees” were properly awarded (see Senfeld v I.S.T.A. Holding Co., 235 AD2d 345 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]; cf. Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 288 AD2d 14 [2001]).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J), entered April 25, 2007, awarding plaintiff legal fees and costs in the amount of $34,269.99, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee considered the relevant factors in determining reasonable attorney fees (see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]), and his findings are supported by the record (see Barrett v Toroyan, 45 AD3d 301 [2007]). Time sheets of the nontestifying attorneys were properly admitted as business records; applicability of the hearsay exception was unchallenged. “Fees on fees” were properly awarded (see Senfeld v I.S.T.A. Holding Co., 235 AD2d 345 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]; cf. Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 288 AD2d 14 [2001]).

We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 248, 857 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1050-tenants-corp-v-lapidus-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack