135 East 57th Street, LLC v. 57th Street Day Spa, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

135 East 57th Street, LLC v. 57th Street Day Spa, LLC

126 A.D.3d 471, 2 N.Y.S.3d 789

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2015

Docket14461 602167/09

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 471 (135 East 57th Street, LLC v. 57th Street Day Spa, LLC) 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

135 East 57th Street, LLC v. 57th Street Day Spa, LLC, 126 A.D.3d 471, 2 N.Y.S.3d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered September 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $69,106.25 against defendants-appellants (defendants), pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 21, 2013, which had granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the report of a special referee, entered July 27, 2012, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, plaintiffs motion denied, and the matter remanded for a new hearing and determination as to the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of defendants’ discovery defaults.

*472 The admissible evidence submitted at the hearing was not sufficient to determine the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiff as a result of defendants’ discovery defaults. Accordingly, the motion court should have rejected the Special Referee’s report recommending that plaintiff be awarded $69,106.25 in attorneys’ fees (see Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727, 727 [1st Dept 1982]). The Special Referee erred in admitting a spreadsheet into evidence as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a), since the document was prepared by plaintiffs counsel for use at the hearing (see National States Elec. Corp. v LFO Constr. Corp., 203 AD2d 49, 50 [1st Dept 1994]), and was not supported by a proper business record foundation (see West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949, 950 [4th Dept 2002]). Nor was the limited testimony provided by an associate of the law firm representing plaintiff sufficient to establish that the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses was fair, reasonable and incurred as a result of the discovery defaults (see Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank v Off W. Broadway Devs., 224 AD2d 376, 377-378 [1st Dept 1996]).

Since it is clear that plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, we remand to the motion court for a new hearing and determination (see 224 AD2d at 376, 379).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered September 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $69,106.25 against defendants-appellants (defendants), pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 21, 2013, which had granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the report of a special referee, entered July 27, 2012, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, plaintiffs motion denied, and the matter remanded for a new hearing and determination as to the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of defendants’ discovery defaults.

*472 The admissible evidence submitted at the hearing was not sufficient to determine the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiff as a result of defendants’ discovery defaults. Accordingly, the motion court should have rejected the Special Referee’s report recommending that plaintiff be awarded $69,106.25 in attorneys’ fees (see Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727, 727 [1st Dept 1982]). The Special Referee erred in admitting a spreadsheet into evidence as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518 (a), since the document was prepared by plaintiffs counsel for use at the hearing (see National States Elec. Corp. v LFO Constr. Corp., 203 AD2d 49, 50 [1st Dept 1994]), and was not supported by a proper business record foundation (see West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949, 950 [4th Dept 2002]). Nor was the limited testimony provided by an associate of the law firm representing plaintiff sufficient to establish that the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses was fair, reasonable and incurred as a result of the discovery defaults (see Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank v Off W. Broadway Devs., 224 AD2d 376, 377-378 [1st Dept 1996]).

Since it is clear that plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, we remand to the motion court for a new hearing and determination (see 224 AD2d at 376, 379).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 471, 2 N.Y.S.3d 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/135-east-57th-street-llc-v-57th-street-day-spa-llc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack