Opinion
10-19-2017
EVUNP HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Jacob FRYDMAN, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Suneet Singal, et al., Defendants.
Lewis S. Fischbein, P.C., New York (Lewis S. Fischbein of counsel), for appellants. Asher C. Gulko, New York, for respondents.
Lewis S. Fischbein, P.C., New York (Lewis S. Fischbein of counsel), for appellants.
Asher C. Gulko, New York, for respondents.
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 A.D.3d 607, 30 N.Y.S.3d 77 [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, 30 N.Y.S.3d 77 ). 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 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 [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 A.D.3d 225, 226, 797 N.Y.S.2d 456 [1st Dept.2005] ). "[T]he burden of showing the ‘reasonableness' of the fee lies upon the claimant" ( Matter of Karp [Cooper], 145 A.D.2d 208, 216, 537 N.Y.S.2d 510 [1st Dept.1989] citing Matter of Potts, 213 A.D. 59, 61, 209 N.Y.S. 655 [4th Dept.1925], affd. 241 N.Y. 593, 150 N.E. 568 [1925] ).
Plaintiffs' failure to address any of the Matter of Freeman , 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 355 N.Y.S.2d 336, 311 N.E.2d 480 (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 A.D.3d 479, 480, 9 N.Y.S.3d 250 [1st Dept.2015] ; 135 E. 57th St., LLC v. 57th St. Day Spa, LLC, 126 A.D.3d 471, 472, 2 N.Y.S.3d 789 [1st Dept.2015] ).
MANZANET–DANIELS, J.P., MAZZARELLI, MOSKOWITZ, KERN, JJ., concur.