125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v Mei Jaio Lin

[*1] 125-127 Allen St. Assoc. v Mei Jaio Lin 2015 NY Slip Op 51520(U) Decided on October 20, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 20, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Hunter, Jr., JJ.
570635/14

125-127 Allen Street Associates, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, -

against

Mei Jaio Lin, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.

Landlord appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2012, which awarded tenant attorneys' fees in the principal sum of $26,950.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Brenda S. Spears, J.), entered on or about March 15, 2012, affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to landlord's assertion that it was deprived of a hearing on the issue of reasonable attorneys' fees, the record reflects that landlord had "this very opportunity" on the scheduled hearing date, but declined to participate (see Hoyt v Hoyt, 18 AD3d 1055, 1058 [2005]). Under these circumstances, landlord had ample opportunity to be heard on this issue. In addition, the parties submissions provided the court with sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable value of the legal services rendered (see Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank v Off Broadway Devs., 224 AD2d 376 [1996]; see also Letter Grade, Inc. v Jasmine Technologies, Inc., 50 AD3d 383 [2008]).

The amount of the attorneys' fees award was within reasonable limits and is not disturbed. The motion court was in the best position to determine the factors integral to fixing fees and we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court's determination (see 542 E. 14th St. LLC v Lee, 66 AD3d 18, 24-25 [2009]). On this record, and since the litigation entailed no fewer than seven court appearances, including a trial on the merits and extensive motion practice, the award of attorneys' fees for legal services rendered in the underlying proceeding were supported by the record and were not excessive.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 20, 2015