From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fleet Credit Corp. v. Harvey Hutter Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 8, 1994
207 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

August 8, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which awarded the plaintiff attorneys' fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment in accordance herewith.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff satisfied its initial burden of coming forward with admissible evidence to support its motion for summary judgment by submitting the affidavit of its accounts receivable manager, together with documentary evidence including the verified pleadings, the subject leases, and two statements of account reflecting the amount claimed to be due and owing (see, Grimm Bldg. Material Co. v. Freeman Excavating, 194 A.D.2d 857). The burden thus shifted to the defendants to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact warranting denial of the motion (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067; Lennox Indus. v. Bier Assocs., 201 A.D.2d 539), and the defendants' unsubstantiated claim that the leased computers and software equipment, which the corporate defendant had retained for nearly four years, did not function as expected, was insufficient to preclude summary judgment (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Grimm Bldg. Material Co. v. Freeman Excavating, supra; Toth v. Carver St. Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 631).

However, the Supreme Court erred in awarding the plaintiff attorneys' fees in a sum amounting to 25% of the total principal sum of the judgment, without conducting a hearing to determine whether the request for attorneys' fees was reasonable (see, Matter of First Natl. Bank v. Brower, 42 N.Y.2d 471; Coniglio v Regan, 186 A.D.2d 709; Marshall v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 186 A.D.2d 542; Headquarters Rest. Corp. v. Reliance Vending Co., 133 A.D.2d 444). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing to determine reasonable attorneys' fees. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fleet Credit Corp. v. Harvey Hutter Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 8, 1994
207 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Fleet Credit Corp. v. Harvey Hutter Co.

Case Details

Full title:FLEET CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. HARVEY HUTTER CO., INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 8, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
615 N.Y.S.2d 702

Citing Cases

Zubli v. 36 Middle Neck Rd., Inc.

There must be evidentiary proof in support of the allegations. Fleet Credit Corp. v. Harvey Hutter Co.,…

Wright v. Bank of Am.

There must be evidentiary proof in support of the allegations. Fleet Credit Corp. v. Harvey Hutter Co.,…