Landlord-Tenant—Legal Fee Award—Holdover Proceeding Dismissed—Respondent Awarded $60,341.30 in Legal Fees—Respondent Justified Counsel's Hourly Rate and Number of Hours—Court May Be Its Own Expert as to the Reasonableness of Hourly Billing Rates "Without Reference to Expert Testimony"—Factors Which Courts Consider In Determining Whether a Rate for Legal Services Is Reasonable: Time and Labor Required, Difficulty of Questions Involved, Required Skill, Experience, Ability and Reputation of Counsel, Benefits Resulting From the Services, Customary Fees Charged for Similar Services, Contingency or Certainty of Compensation, Results Obtained and Responsibility Involved—Actual Payment Of Attorney Fees Is Not a Condition to a Party's Recovery Under RPL §234—A Hearing Was Not Needed for Court To Evaluate the Reasonableness of the Hours Expended Since Petitioner Had Not Raised an Issue of Fact With Respect Thereto—Attorney Rates Cannot Be Charged for Work That Could Be "Done By a Secretary or a Paralegal"

The petitioner had commenced the holdover proceeding, seeking possession of an apartment on the grounds that the respondent's "occupancy was incidental to his employment with petitioner and that petitioner terminated respondent's employment." The court had dismissed the proceeding and denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss the respondent's counterclaim for attorney fees. The respondent had moved for judgment on his counterclaim for attorney fees.

The court explained that the lease entitled the respondent to a judgment on his counterclaim pursuant to RPL §234. The respondent was the "prevailing party in this proceeding." The court then addressed whether the respondent's counsel's hourly rates are "reasonable and whether the hours billed by respondent's counsel are reasonable."