Summary
In Morgan & Finnegan v. Howe Chem. Co. 210 A.D.2d 62; 619 N.Y.S.2d 719 [1st Dept 1994] plaintiff's showing that it was retained in an urgent matter of great financial importance, and that five attorneys worked long hours under considerable time pressure to prepare successful opposition papers, did not obviate the need for a hearing.
Summary of this case from Law Office of Jacalyn F. Barnett, P.C. v. LabateOpinion
December 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Plaintiff instituted this action to recover attorney fees in the amount of $105,887.65 for representation of defendant corporation in a Federal action alleging trademark infringement. The court declined to issue a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from marketing a tooth whitening system, and the matter was subsequently settled without any restrictions on defendant's advertising and sale of the product.
On this appeal, plaintiff argues that it was entitled to summary judgment since detailed bills demonstrate that it performed the work for which it seeks recovery. Defendant does not dispute the quality of services rendered but asserts that there is a "serious misunderstanding" about the amount of effort required to achieve the favorable outcome. Defendant notes that the extent of plaintiff's duties in this litigation was the preparation of papers in opposition to a motion for injunctive relief and contends that a hearing is required to determine the reasonable value of the services rendered.
We agree. Plaintiff's showing that it was retained in an urgent matter of enormous financial importance and that five attorneys worked long hours under considerable time pressure to prepare successful opposition papers does not obviate the need for a hearing. The reasonableness of plaintiff's fees can be determined only after consideration of the difficulty of the issues and the skill required to resolve them; the lawyers' experience, ability and reputation; the time and labor required; the amount involved and benefit resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee charged for similar services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained and the responsibility involved (Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9; Marshall v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 186 A.D.2d 542, 543; Gutin v Gutin, 155 A.D.2d 586, 587; cf., Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel v Aronoff, 638 F. Supp. 714).
Plaintiff's attempt to assail the sufficiency of defendant's opposition to the motion is unavailing. Defense counsel's affirmation on matters within his expertise as well as depositions from attorneys practicing in plaintiff's area of specialty are sufficient to place the issues of fact before the court (Van Alstyne v Magique Discotheque Corp., 180 A.D.2d 453; see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 325; Olan v Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 1092).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.