155 West 21st Street, LLC v. McMullan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

155 West 21st Street, LLC v. McMullan

112 A.D.3d 526, 976 N.Y.S.2d 664

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 526 (155 West 21st Street, LLC v. McMullan) 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

155 West 21st Street, LLC v. McMullan, 112 A.D.3d 526, 976 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven E. Liebman, Special Ref.), entered September 6, 2012, which awarded certain attorney’s fees against petitioner 155 West 21st Street, LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, respondent Alistair Mc-Mullan could recover fees awarded under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, even if counsel was representing him pro bono (see Senfeld v I.S.T.A. Holding Co., 235 AD2d 345 [1st Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]). Moreover, while the fact that respondent had vacated the premises at issue rendered the underlying proceeding moot, it did not deprive this Court of the power to award a sanction against petitioner in the proceeding. Nor was there a bar to respondent being awarded fees for the extensive effort of obtaining and defending the sanctions award (see Posner v S. Paul Posner 1976 Irrevocable Family Trust, 12 AD3d 177, 179 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven E. Liebman, Special Ref.), entered September 6, 2012, which awarded certain attorney’s fees against petitioner 155 West 21st Street, LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, respondent Alistair Mc-Mullan could recover fees awarded under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, even if counsel was representing him pro bono (see Senfeld v I.S.T.A. Holding Co., 235 AD2d 345 [1st Dept 1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 956 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 818 [1998]). Moreover, while the fact that respondent had vacated the premises at issue rendered the underlying proceeding moot, it did not deprive this Court of the power to award a sanction against petitioner in the proceeding. Nor was there a bar to respondent being awarded fees for the extensive effort of obtaining and defending the sanctions award (see Posner v S. Paul Posner 1976 Irrevocable Family Trust, 12 AD3d 177, 179 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 526, 976 N.Y.S.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/155-west-21st-street-llc-v-mcmullan-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack