Flushing Savings Bank F.S.B. v P.J. Bricks, LLC

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Flushing Savings Bank F.S.B. v P.J. Bricks, LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 32305(U) September 4, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 810087/11 Judge: Judith J. Gische Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ED ON 91612012 [* 1] Jusllco Inrjt!x Nurnhrr 81008712Ul 1 FLUSHING SAVINGS RANK [* 2] STATE New YORK OF CoUNW OF NEW YoRKt IAS PART 10 SUPREME OF COURT THE ----- ------------ X DECISION~ORDER Index No.: 810087-11 Seq. No.: 003 Flushing Savings Bank F.S.B., Plaintiff (s), -against- PRESENT: Jim, Judith J. Gische J.S.C. P.J. Bricks, LLC, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, New York City Department of Finance, Paul Urban, Board of Managers of the New York Industrial Condominium, Baron Upholsterer's, Inc., Defendant ( 8 ) . _____l_l_l_______________________l_l___l-------- X Recitation, as required by CPLR Q 2219 [a] of the papers considered in the review of this (these) motion(s): Nurnberod Papers Flushing n/m (judgment of foreclosure and sale) w/ERV affirm, Valente Oath and Report (sep back), exhibits, proof of senrice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2 P.J. Bricks opp wlMJB affirm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Flushing reply wlERV affirm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Upon the foregoing pepem, the decision and order of the court is as follows: GISCHE J.: This is a mortgage foreclosure action. The court appointed Francis L. Valente, Jr., Esq. ("Referee") as Referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to the bank for principal and interest. Referee Valente has filed his oath and report stating that the sum of $3,847,516.74, plus interest from March 15, 2012, but exclusive of legal fees is the amount due to the plaintifflbank. Plaintiff now moves for confirmation of the Referee's report, entry of a judgment against the defendants In the sum reported. -Page 1 of 5- [* 3] Plaintiff also seeks an award of legal fees in the sum of $23,182.75, representlng the amounts they have incurred in the prosecution of this action ($21,607.75), plus the cost of bringing this motion and anticipated fees to be incurred in preparing for and attending the sale of the mortgaged property. The only defendants who have answered or moved with respect to the complalnt are P.J. Bricks, Paul Urban and Baron Upholsterets Inc. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, the NYC Department of Finance and Board of Managers of the New York Industrial Condominium have also appeared. Although there is proof of service on all appearing parties, the only defendant opposing this motion is P.J. Bricks. P.J. Bricks does not oppose confirmation of the Referee's report nor challenge the sums reported as due. Therefore, plaintiffs motion for conflrmation of the Report and entry of a Judgment in plaintiffs favor for the sum of $3,847,510.74,together with interest at the rate set forth in the note and mortgage and the sums advanced, from the date specified in said report, plus costs and disbursement and other sums identified in the reporl is granted. The sole dispute on thls motion is the issue of legal fees. Although not challenging plaintiffs right to recover legal fees, and apparently agreeing that the mortgage entitles the plaintiff to recover its reasonable legal fee In prosecuting this action, P.J. Bricks argues that the plaintiff has not sufficiently documented its entitlement to the legal fees. The claimed deficiency in the papers submitted is the absence of any statement identifying the full names of the attorneys who worked on the case (only inltials are used), there is no identification as to whether the attorney is a partner or associate with the flrm, and the educational background and professlonal experience of the attorneys who billed their time is not provided. P.J. Bricks also claims -Page 2 of 5- . [* 4] there is no statement by the attorney describing the level of complexity of this case and correlating that statement to the amount billed. In his affirmation in support of plaintlffs motlon for legal fees, Attorney Vallely states that the firm agreed to prosecute this matter for an hourly fee of $225 per hour and that paralegals were billed at $100 per hour. An attorney whose regular hourly rate is less than $225 an hour was billed at his or her lower rate. Attorney Valley estimates it took two (2) hours to prepare this motion and it will take five (5) hours to complete the remaining work attendant to the sale of the property. Exhibit "G" the proposed Judgement and Foreclosure of Sale is a Time and to Expense Detail Report ("timesheets") prepared by the firm. The timesheets show that no attorney billed more than $225 per hour. There are a number of entries at the lower rates of $200 and $100 per hour. Each entry contains a narrative of the work performed, the date posted, the billable time spent, the cost of the task and the initials of the individual performing the work. A sampling of the narrative entries include preparation of the summons and complaint, motion practice, drafting the order appointing a receiver, and then drafting another order appointing a replacement recelvar when the first receiver could not serve, court appearances, communication with the Receiver, preparation of a motion for summary judgment, review of pay off figures, and preparation of documents in connection with the Referee's oath and report. An award of attorney's fees should bear a reasonable relation to the time and effort expended by plaintlffs counsel In the foreclosure action taking into account such factors as the customary fee charged for similar services (Manufacturers & Tradera Trust CQ.v, m h e f l y , 11 A.D.3d 1019 [4" Dapt 20041). The court should also take -Page 3 of 5- [* 5] into consideration the relationship of the fees sought vis a vis the judgment amount Dept awarded (see, Kenneth Preano Aqenw. Ltd. v. Letterese, 112 AD2d 1032 [2"6 1g85]). The attorney affirmation and documentation provided in connection with plaintiffs motion for legal fees meets each of these requirements. P.J. Bricks makes no claim that the $225 hourly fee is too high. Importantly, P.J. Bricks does not demand a hearing on legal fees, rather defendant only asks that they be rejected wholesale. Even if defendant had requested a legal fees hearing, that relief would be denied because, for the reasons that follows, P.J. Bricks has not made a threshold shown that a hearlng is necessary. In weighing legal fees, a "court may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees [and] may form an independent judgment from the facts and the evidence before it as to the nature and extent of the services rendered, make an appraisal of such services, and determine the reasonable value there of' (Jordan v. Freeman, 40 A.D.2d 656, 657 [la Dept. 19721). "The relevant factors in the determinatlon of the value of legal services are the nature and extent of the servlces, the actual time spent, the necessity therefor, the nature of the issues involved, the professional standing of counsel, and the results achieved" -East 14th Street LLC v. Lee, 66 A.D.3d 18, 24 [l" Dept 20091 citing Jordan v, F r e e m, supra at 656). The sum of $225 per hour, whether for a freshman associate or seasoned partner, is well within the acceptable range of hourly rates for practitioners in New York County, this type of work and this size law firm. P.J. Bricks does not claim that the -Page 4 of 5- [* 6] tJilliny is irrfl;itcc-l or that arry of t t r e work claimed to have twen perforrnsd was not done. Reviewiny the tinle sheet entries, the court finds they are consisterlt with t l ~ e entries pruscnt at ;.I I ~ ~ r nviere o m ordered, or what issues defendant waulcl pirrsire g, Thcrefnr'e the rt.ryc.iest to disollow the legal fees sought by plaintiff is detried. The motion f o r enlry o f a .Iiiclgrmi'lt of Foreclosure and Sale, iiiciiisivc cjf attorneys fees ar.1 awarcl for in the amount of $23, 182 75, which irwliides the cust of this motion and anticipated experise of corrrpletirrg this action, is gr'aiited 111 all respects. l-tie. Judgment d Frort,iicloSuw iiiid Sale has bcc-r'iseparately signed and is of everi date. Any irilief requestccl l ~ riot specifically addr'essnd Is hereby donied t "rhk cnnstitiites the clecisian and order of the court Dated New York, New York Soptciiibcr 4, 2012 S o Ordered: . Page 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.