EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman

2017 NY Slip Op 7335, 154 A.D.3d 558, 62 N.Y.S.3d 263

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2017

Docket4756 650841/14

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7335 (EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman) 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

EVUNP Holdings LLC v. Frydman, 2017 NY Slip Op 7335, 154 A.D.3d 558, 62 N.Y.S.3d 263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 20, 2016, in plaintiffs’ favor in the total sum of $29,658.43, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 2, 2015, which fixed the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to plaintiffs as $28,033.99, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the award vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing on the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, in conformance with this Court’s decision.

On a prior appeal, this Court affirmed an order which, to the extent appealed from, awarded plaintiffs their costs in replying to, and moving to strike, defendants’ defective motions (138 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2016]). At that time, this Court declined to consider defendants’ challenge to the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ fees, which had been awarded in a subsequent order, finding that “[w]hether the sum the court awarded was proper is not before us on this appeal” {id. at 607). We now determine the issue. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants’ appeal from the ensuing judgment, after issuance of the underlying order, is proper (see CPLR 5501 [a]; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

“ [T]he [trial] court . . . has the authority and responsibility to determine that the claim for fees is reasonable” (Solow Mgt. Corp. v Tanger, 19 AD3d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2005]). “[T]he burden of showing the ‘reasonableness’ of the fee lies upon the claimant” (Matter of Karp [Cooper], 145 AD2d 208, 216 [1st Dept 1989], citing Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 61 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]).

Plaintiffs’ failure to address any of the Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]) factors used to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, other than time and labor, which was supported by invoices with block-billed entries, some of which contained redactions, warrants remand for a hearing (see S.T.A. Parking Corp. v Lancer Ins. Co., 128 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]; 135 E. 57th St., LLC v 57th St. Day Spa, LLC, 126 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kern, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 20, 2016, in plaintiffs’ favor in the total sum of $29,658.43, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 2, 2015, which fixed the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to plaintiffs as $28,033.99, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the award vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing on the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, in conformance with this Court’s decision.

On a prior appeal, this Court affirmed an order which, to the extent appealed from, awarded plaintiffs their costs in replying to, and moving to strike, defendants’ defective motions (138 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2016]). At that time, this Court declined to consider defendants’ challenge to the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ fees, which had been awarded in a subsequent order, finding that “[w]hether the sum the court awarded was proper is not before us on this appeal” {id. at 607). We now determine the issue. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants’ appeal from the ensuing judgment, after issuance of the underlying order, is proper (see CPLR 5501 [a]; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

“ [T]he [trial] court . . . has the authority and responsibility to determine that the claim for fees is reasonable” (Solow Mgt. Corp. v Tanger, 19 AD3d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2005]). “[T]he burden of showing the ‘reasonableness’ of the fee lies upon the claimant” (Matter of Karp [Cooper], 145 AD2d 208, 216 [1st Dept 1989], citing Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 61 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]).

Plaintiffs’ failure to address any of the Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]) factors used to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, other than time and labor, which was supported by invoices with block-billed entries, some of which contained redactions, warrants remand for a hearing (see S.T.A. Parking Corp. v Lancer Ins. Co., 128 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]; 135 E. 57th St., LLC v 57th St. Day Spa, LLC, 126 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7335, 154 A.D.3d 558, 62 N.Y.S.3d 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evunp-holdings-llc-v-frydman-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack