Goldman v Rosen

[*1] Goldman v Rosen 2007 NY Slip Op 50743(U) [15 Misc 3d 135(A)] Decided on April 9, 2007 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 9, 2007
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McCooe, J.P., Davis, Schoenfeld, JJ
.

Sharon Goldman, Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, No. 570688/05

against

Aby Rosen, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.

Tenant appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated November 10, 2005, which denied his motion to dismiss landlord's claim for attorneys' fees in a holdover summary proceeding, (2) so much of an order (same court and Judge), dated November 10, 2005, as granted landlord's motion to quash subpoenas, and (3) a judgment (same court and Judge), entered December 22, 2005, which awarded landlord attorneys' fees and disbursements in the amount of $208,662.76.

PER CURIAM:

Judgment (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered December 22, 2005, modified to vacate the award of fees and
disbursements relating to the Supreme Court action and as
modified, affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded for entry of an amended judgment accordingly. Appeals from
orders (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated November 10, 2005, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Landlord was properly awarded attorneys' fees as the prevailing party in this holdover summary proceeding. Considering the protracted nature of the litigation and the favorable results ultimately achieved, the fee award, though substantial, is supported by the record. The court appropriately evaluated the attorneys' testimony and records as to the nature and extent of the legal services rendered (see Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank FSB v Off W. Broadway Devs., 224 AD2d 376 [1996]). However, we modify the judgment to deny landlord attorney's fees in connection with the related Supreme Court action. Inasmuch as that action remains pending, any claim for attorneys' fees must await the ultimate outcome thereof (see North Waterside Redevelopment Co. v Febbaro, 256 AD2d 261 [1998]).

We have considered tenant's remaining arguments
and find them unavailing. [*2]

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: April 09, 2007