Redmond v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Redmond v. City of Rochester

213 A.D.2d 1042, 624 N.Y.S.2d 317

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1042 (Redmond v. City of Rochester) 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

Redmond v. City of Rochester, 213 A.D.2d 1042, 624 N.Y.S.2d 317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and amended petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in annulling the determination of the Corporation Counsel; that determination was reasonable and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231; Matter of Kerins v City of Niagara Falls, 167 AD2d 846).

Section 2-23 (B) of the City of Rochester Charter requires the City to pay the "reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees at rates prevailing in the local legal community” for employee-incurred litigation expenses in a criminal proceeding upon acquittal of criminal charges. However, that section also states that "[t]he determination of the Corporation Counsel in this regard shall be final.” The Corporation Counsel accepted and approved the total hours expended by petitioner law firm on behalf of the City employee. Thus, the issue is the reasonable value of those legal services. The Corporation Counsel conducted a survey of the prevailing rates charged by Rochester criminal defense attorneys in complex criminal cases. It cannot be said that, by selecting the upper end of the prevailing range, the Corporation Counsel made an arbitrary or unreasonable determination. Accepting the highest rate reflects whatever prominence counsel may have in the community as a criminal defense attorney and reasonably reflects his charges to other clients.

We conclude that the Corporation Counsel properly determined the reasonable hourly rate for all phases of the legal services rendered by petitioner law firm. There is no merit to the claim for an "exceptional result fee”, and the court erred in remitting that issue to respondents for determination. In view of our decision, the question of prejudgment interest on such fees is moot. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Counsel Fees.) Present— Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and amended petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in annulling the determination of the Corporation Counsel; that determination was reasonable and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 230-231; Matter of Kerins v City of Niagara Falls, 167 AD2d 846).

Section 2-23 (B) of the City of Rochester Charter requires the City to pay the "reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees at rates prevailing in the local legal community” for employee-incurred litigation expenses in a criminal proceeding upon acquittal of criminal charges. However, that section also states that "[t]he determination of the Corporation Counsel in this regard shall be final.” The Corporation Counsel accepted and approved the total hours expended by petitioner law firm on behalf of the City employee. Thus, the issue is the reasonable value of those legal services. The Corporation Counsel conducted a survey of the prevailing rates charged by Rochester criminal defense attorneys in complex criminal cases. It cannot be said that, by selecting the upper end of the prevailing range, the Corporation Counsel made an arbitrary or unreasonable determination. Accepting the highest rate reflects whatever prominence counsel may have in the community as a criminal defense attorney and reasonably reflects his charges to other clients.

We conclude that the Corporation Counsel properly determined the reasonable hourly rate for all phases of the legal services rendered by petitioner law firm. There is no merit to the claim for an "exceptional result fee”, and the court erred in remitting that issue to respondents for determination. In view of our decision, the question of prejudgment interest on such fees is moot. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Counsel Fees.) Present— Green, J. P., Wesley, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1042, 624 N.Y.S.2d 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redmond-v-city-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack