Megan Holding LLC v Conason

[*1] Megan Holding LLC v Conason 2015 NY Slip Op 50952(U) Decided on June 25, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 25, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570530/11

Megan Holding LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant,

against

Julie Conason and Geoffrey Bryant, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents.

Landlord appeals from a "decision and order" of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2013, after a hearing, which awarded tenants additional attorneys fees in the principal sum of $49,471.25 in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a "decision and order" (Arlene H. Hahn, J.), entered on or about November 15, 2013, deemed an appeal from the judgment (Arlene H. Hahn), entered on or about the same date, and so considered (see CPLR 5520[c]), judgment modified to reduce tenants' recovery of additional attorneys' fees to the principal sum of $33,576.25; as modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

The amount of the additional attorneys' fees awarded to tenants for successfully defending landlord's prior appeal (see Megan Holding LLC v Conason, 37 Misc 3d 135[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 52117[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2012]), was excessive to the extent indicated. In so concluding, we note that although tenants prevailed on the prior appeal, they are not entitled to the portion of their attorneys' fees incurred in their unsuccessful motion practice in this court, including their five motions (or cross motions) to dismiss landlord's prior appeal for failure to timely perfect (see Nestor v Britt, NYLJ, July 2, 1998, at 32, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept 1998], affd 270 AD2d 192 [2000]; Binaku Realty Co. v Penepede, 2 Misc 3d 140[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50292[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]; see also Quoratino v Tiffany & Co., 166 F3d 422, 427 [2nd Cir 1999]; cf. 542 E. 14th St. LLC v Lee, 66 AD3d 18, 24-25 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 25, 2015