Auguste v. Hammons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Auguste v. Hammons

285 A.D.2d 417, 727 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646

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

DecidedJuly 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 417 (Auguste v. Hammons) 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

Auguste v. Hammons, 285 A.D.2d 417, 727 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J., upon decision of Salvador Collazo, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, in a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding, granted petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 and CPLR article 86, awarding petitioner attorney’s fees in the principal amount of $11,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the application denied.

[418]*418Respondent New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) restored petitioner’s Medicaid benefits almost immediately after the commencement of this proceeding. In view of this, Supreme Court dismissed as moot petitioner’s request, inter alia, for a judgment declaring unconstitutional respondents’ method of terminating such benefits. Nevertheless, Supreme Court, apparently concluding that petitioner was the prevailing party, determined that petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. This was error. .

While petitioner asserts that attorney’s fees were authorized because the filing of the petition was the “catalyst” for the remedial action taken by DSS, namely a restoration of his benefits, this theory of recovery has recently been rejected by the United States Supreme Court (Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 531 US 1004; see also, Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn. v Kaladjian, 85 NY2d 346, 354 [standard for prevailing party status under State Equal Access to Justice Act stricter than Federal counterpart]). Since Supreme Court did not issue an enforceable judgment on the merits of petitioner’s constitutional claims, there was no material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties sufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees (Buckhannon, supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J., upon decision of Salvador Collazo, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, in a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding, granted petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 and CPLR article 86, awarding petitioner attorney’s fees in the principal amount of $11,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the application denied.

[418]*418Respondent New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) restored petitioner’s Medicaid benefits almost immediately after the commencement of this proceeding. In view of this, Supreme Court dismissed as moot petitioner’s request, inter alia, for a judgment declaring unconstitutional respondents’ method of terminating such benefits. Nevertheless, Supreme Court, apparently concluding that petitioner was the prevailing party, determined that petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. This was error. .

While petitioner asserts that attorney’s fees were authorized because the filing of the petition was the “catalyst” for the remedial action taken by DSS, namely a restoration of his benefits, this theory of recovery has recently been rejected by the United States Supreme Court (Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 531 US 1004; see also, Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn. v Kaladjian, 85 NY2d 346, 354 [standard for prevailing party status under State Equal Access to Justice Act stricter than Federal counterpart]). Since Supreme Court did not issue an enforceable judgment on the merits of petitioner’s constitutional claims, there was no material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties sufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees (Buckhannon, supra). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 417, 727 N.Y.S.2d 880, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auguste-v-hammons-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack