Opinion
10050N Index 157114/16
10-10-2019
Verina HIXON, Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent, v. 12–14 EAST 64TH OWNERS CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants, Robert Renzulli, et al., Defendants.
Waxman & Waxman, P.C., New York (Lawrence D. Waxman of counsel), and Leonard M. Kohen, New York, for appellant-respondent. Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Bradley S. Silverbush of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Waxman & Waxman, P.C., New York (Lawrence D. Waxman of counsel), and Leonard M. Kohen, New York, for appellant-respondent.
Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Bradley S. Silverbush of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2018, which denied plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a referee to determine the reasonableness of attorneys' fees incurred by 12–14 East 64th Owners Corp, Eric Juneau Blair and Matthew Mirones (the co-op defendants), and denied the co-op defendants' cross motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We find that an appeal lies from an order denying a motion to hear and determine pursuant to CPLR 4317(b) (see Davidson v. Sterngass , 279 A.D. 875, 875, 110 N.Y.S.2d 346 [2d Dept. 1952] ). We agree with the motion court's determination that an order of reference was not necessary, because all of the proof necessary to determine whether the fees were reasonable was before the court (see Domino Media v. Kranis , 215 A.D.2d 278, 278, 627 N.Y.S.2d 554 [1st Dept. 1995] ; see also Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo v. Mendes Jr. Intl. Co. , 249 A.D.2d 137, 139, 672 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept. 1998] ). Plaintiff's challenge to the fee award was unsupported by any particularized factual evidence (see Banco do Estado , 249 A.D.2d at 139, 672 N.Y.S.2d 28 ).
Supreme Court providently denied the application for sanctions in accordance with 22 NYCRR 130–1.1.