URS Corporation-New York v. Expert Electric, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

URS Corporation-New York v. Expert Electric, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 4782, 151 A.D.3d 520, 53 N.Y.S.3d 830

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 2017·No. 100147/15·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered February 8, 2017, awarding petitioner attorneys’ fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the judgment vacated.

The court properly declined to vacate respondent’s default, upon which petitioner’s motion to cancel the public improvement lien filed by respondent was granted, because respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Lopez-Reyes v Heriveaux, 144 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2016]).

The court erred in awarding petitioner attorneys’ fees since, *521 as petitioner concedes, attorneys’ fees are not authorized either by statute or court rule, and we find that the contractual provisions on which petitioner relies do not authorize an award of attorneys’ fees in the instant circumstances (see Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Richter, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered February 8, 2017, awarding petitioner attorneys’ fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the judgment vacated.

The court properly declined to vacate respondent’s default, upon which petitioner’s motion to cancel the public improvement lien filed by respondent was granted, because respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense (see Lopez-Reyes v Heriveaux, 144 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2016]).

The court erred in awarding petitioner attorneys’ fees since, *521 as petitioner concedes, attorneys’ fees are not authorized either by statute or court rule, and we find that the contractual provisions on which petitioner relies do not authorize an award of attorneys’ fees in the instant circumstances (see Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Richter, Feinman and Webber, JJ.

URS Corporation-New York v. Expert Electric, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 4782, 151 A.D.3d 520, 53 N.Y.S.3d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 4782 (URS Corporation-New York v. Expert Electric, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related