David Realty & Funding, LLC v. Second Avenue Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David Realty & Funding, LLC v. Second Avenue Realty Co.

26 A.D.3d 257, 809 N.Y.S.2d 81

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 257 (David Realty & Funding, LLC v. Second Avenue Realty Co.) 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

David Realty & Funding, LLC v. Second Avenue Realty Co., 26 A.D.3d 257, 809 N.Y.S.2d 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York [258]*258County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 20, 2005, which, in large part, granted respondent receiver’s motion to confirm a Special Referee’s report fixing the receiver’s reasonable attorneys’ fee, and awarded the receiver an attorneys’ fee of $133,555, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings, with the court’s minor revisions, are substantially supported by the record (see Vastwin Invs. v Aquarius Media Corp., 295 AD2d 216, 217 [2002], appeal dismissed 99 NY2d 637 [2003]). The Special Referee and the court properly employed their own knowledge, expertise and experience in determining the reasonableness of the fee (see Schoenau v Lek, 283 AD2d 200 [2001]), and properly explained their elimination of certain hours billed (see Holskin v 22 Prince St. Assoc., 178 AD2d 347, 348 [1991]). Our recent decision in Matter of Jakubowicz v A.C. Green Elec. Contrs., Inc. (25 AD3d 146 [2005]), limiting an hourly rate to $250 (see id. at 152), is distinguishable. While that case involved the same attorney who here seeks a fee on behalf of his firm, he was there acting as the receiver, not as an attorney, and the rate of the attorney he had engaged was reduced where the fee was largely generated by out-of-court work, not appearances at a prolonged hearing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Malone, 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 [258]*258County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered May 20, 2005, which, in large part, granted respondent receiver’s motion to confirm a Special Referee’s report fixing the receiver’s reasonable attorneys’ fee, and awarded the receiver an attorneys’ fee of $133,555, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings, with the court’s minor revisions, are substantially supported by the record (see Vastwin Invs. v Aquarius Media Corp., 295 AD2d 216, 217 [2002], appeal dismissed 99 NY2d 637 [2003]). The Special Referee and the court properly employed their own knowledge, expertise and experience in determining the reasonableness of the fee (see Schoenau v Lek, 283 AD2d 200 [2001]), and properly explained their elimination of certain hours billed (see Holskin v 22 Prince St. Assoc., 178 AD2d 347, 348 [1991]). Our recent decision in Matter of Jakubowicz v A.C. Green Elec. Contrs., Inc. (25 AD3d 146 [2005]), limiting an hourly rate to $250 (see id. at 152), is distinguishable. While that case involved the same attorney who here seeks a fee on behalf of his firm, he was there acting as the receiver, not as an attorney, and the rate of the attorney he had engaged was reduced where the fee was largely generated by out-of-court work, not appearances at a prolonged hearing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 257, 809 N.Y.S.2d 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-realty-funding-llc-v-second-avenue-realty-co-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack