Buni v Kleinerman

[*1] Buni v Kleinerman 2014 NY Slip Op 51884(U) Decided on December 31, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 31, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570054/14

Ronny Buni, Esq. and The Law Offices of Ronny Buni, a Professional Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

against

Vivian Kleinerman and Gerald Kleinerman, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, entered July 15, 2013 (Frank P. Nervo, J.), after a nonjury trial, which dismissed the complaint and awarded defendants damages in the principal sum of $21,621 on their counterclaim.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered July 15, 2013, modified to reduce defendants' recovery on their counterclaim to the principal sum of $8,371; as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs, a law firm and its principal, commenced this action to recover for legal services rendered to defendants in connection with litigation commenced by defendants against a cooperative corporation and its individual board members. While the trial evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's finding that plaintiffs overbilled for their services, the record does not support the court's ultimate determination that the total value of the legal services rendered by plaintiffs was a mere $750. Viewing the evidence presented in light of all relevant factors (see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]), including the level of complexity of the issues raised in the underlying litigation, the necessity of plaintiffs, as successor counsel in that litigation, to gain familiarity with the file following defendants' prior self-representation, and plaintiffs' exercise of due diligence in preparing for an impending discovery deadline as reflected in detailed contemporaneous invoices, we conclude that the total fee award was inadequate to the extent indicated (see generally Tige Real Estate Dev. Co., Inc. v Rankin-Smith, 233 AD2d 227, 228 [1996]); Matter of Rahmen v Blum, 95 AD2d 294, 303-304 [1983]). We have modified the judgment on defendants' counterclaim accordingly.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 31, 2014