Opinion
06-08-2016
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., appellant, v. Terrence Theophilus LaPIERRE, respondent.
Butler, Fitzgerald, Fiveson & McCarthy, New York, N.Y. (David K. Fiveson and Claudia Grossman Jaffe of counsel), for appellant. Joelson & Rochkind, New York, N.Y. (Steven H. Rochkind and Geofrey Liu of counsel), for respondent.
Butler, Fitzgerald, Fiveson & McCarthy, New York, N.Y. (David K. Fiveson and Claudia Grossman Jaffe of counsel), for appellant.
Joelson & Rochkind, New York, N.Y. (Steven H. Rochkind and Geofrey Liu of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion In a subrogation action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to Executive Law § 135 for misconduct by a notary public, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated November 27, 2013, which denied its motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in its favor as a matter of law in the principal sum of $103,125.24.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In this subrogation action, the plaintiff seeks to recover the principal sum of $103,125.24, for attorneys' fees and costs allegedly incurred by reason of the defendant's notarial misconduct in violation of Executive Law § 135. Following a prior appeal to this Court (see Chicago Tit. Ins. Co. v. LaPierre, 104 A.D.3d 720, 961 N.Y.S.2d 237 ), the plaintiff moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in its favor as a matter of law in the principal sum of $103,125.24. The Supreme Court denied its motion. We affirm.
The “American Rule,” which is followed in New York, is that “[a]n attorney's fee is merely an incident of litigation and is not recoverable absent a specific contractual provision or statutory authority” (Levine v. Infidelity, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 691, 692, 770 N.Y.S.2d 83 ; see Mount Vernon City School Dist. v. Nova Cas. Co., 19 N.Y.3d 28, 39, 945 N.Y.S.2d 202, 968 N.E.2d 439 ; Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 511 N.Y.S.2d 216, 503 N.E.2d 681 ; 214 Wall St. Assoc., LLC v. Medical Arts–Huntington Realty, 99 A.D.3d 988, 990, 953 N.Y.S.2d 124 ; Gorman v. Fowkes, 97 A.D.3d 726, 727, 949 N.Y.S.2d 96 ). Here, while Executive Law § 135 provides, in relevant part, that “[f]or any misconduct by a notary public in the performance of any of his [or her] powers such notary public shall be liable to the parties injured for all damages sustained by them,” the plain language of the statute does not explicitly permit recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. Even if this statute could “arguably support an implied right” to those fees and costs, the public policy of the American Rule “militate[s] against adoption of that interpretation” (Baker v. Health Mgt. Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 80, 88, 745 N.Y.S.2d 741, 772 N.E.2d 1099 ; see 214 Wall St. Assoc., LLC v. Medical Arts–Huntington Realty, 99 A.D.3d at 990, 953 N.Y.S.2d 124 ). We note that to the extent that the Supreme Court determined that a narrow exception to the American Rule as set forth in ( Shindler v. Lamb, 25 Misc.2d 810, 211 N.Y.S.2d 762 [Sup.Ct., N.Y. County], affd. 10 A.D.2d 826, 200 N.Y.S.2d 346, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 621, 210 N.Y.S.2d 226, 172 N.E.2d 79 ) may permit recovery of certain attorneys' fees and costs, that exception is inapplicable herein (see Hunt v. Sharp, 85 N.Y.2d 883, 885, 626 N.Y.S.2d 57, 649 N.E.2d 1201 ; Chase Manhattan Bank v. Each Individual Underwriter
Bound to Lloyd's Policy No. 790/004A89005, 258 A.D.2d 1, 5–6, 690 N.Y.S.2d 570 ).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment in its favor as a matter of law in the principal sum of $103,125.24.