Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion.Papers NumberedNotice of Cross-Motion and Supplemental Affirmation and Affidavit Annexed 1, 2, 3Decision and Order of the Court dated February 8, 2018 4Affirmation In Support 5Reply Affirmation 6DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision and Order on this Motion are as follows: Rangoon, Inc., the petitioner in this proceeding (“Petitioner”), commenced this proceeding against Yi Gui Lin, the respondent in this proceeding (“Respondent”) seeking possession of 144 East Broadway, Apt. 2, New York, New York (“the subject premises”) on a variety of grounds, including illegal alteration. After trial, the Court awarded Petitioner a final judgment of possession and stayed issuance of the warrant of eviction. Petitioner then moved for a judgment in its favor sounding in attorneys’ fees. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion to the extent of finding that Petitioner was the prevailing party in this litigation and that a lease between the parties entitles Petitioner to a judgment as such. What remains for the Court to determine is the amount of the judgment.In lieu of a hearing, the parties stipulated to Petitioner’s attorney’s time records and further stipulated on the record that Petitioner’s attorney received an MBA from Columbia University, a JD from Brooklyn Law School, and an LLM from New York University; that Petitioner’s attorney has been a practicing attorney since 1976; and that Petitioner’s attorney has focused on a landlord/tenant practice since 1980. Petitioner’s attorney seeks an award based upon an hourly rate of $650.00.Respondent’s attorney, in opposition to Petitioner’s motion, argues that he is a 1977 graduate of New York University School of Law and that his hourly rate is $375.00.An indispensable component of an award of attorneys’ fees is that the hourly rate sought must be reasonable. Accordingly, the amount must be based upon a showing of the prevailing hourly rate for similar legal work in the community. Gamache v. Steinhaus, 7 AD3d 525, 527 (2nd Dept. 2004); Matter of Graves v. Doar, 2010 NY Slip Op. 31051(U), 10 (S. Ct. Nassau Co. 2010), citing Miele v. NYS Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 831 F.2d 407, 409 (2nd Cir. 1987). The Court may be its own expert with regard to the reasonableness of hourly billing rates for attorneys, Delgado v. Delgado, 160 AD2d 385, 386 (1st Dept. 1990), and may make a determination as to the reasonableness of this rate without reference to expert testimony. TAG 380 LLC v. Estate of Howard P. Ronson, 89 AD3d 411, 412 (1st Dept. 2011), leave to appeal denied, 18 NY3d 804 (2012).In 2012, six years before this writing, a Court found $500.00 to be a reasonable hourly rate for a housing litigator who was admitted to practice law in 1976. Ninth Ave. Realty LLC v. McKay and Silver, 2012 NY Misc. LEXIS 6116, at *5 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2012). In 2008, ten years before this writing, a Court found an hourly rate of $520 to be reasonable for a senior partner of a landlord/tenant group at a law firm. Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc 3d 368, 375-76 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2007), aff’d, 19 Misc 3d 142(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2008). In 2017, one year before this writing, a Court found a rate of $375.00 to be reasonable for an attorney with twenty-one years’ experience in the subject area. S.B.H. Realty v. Santana, 57 Misc 3d 1205(A)(Civ. Ct. Bronx Co. 2017).Finding a reasonable rate, however, entails more than a rote application of a number of years. Courts also consider the complexity of issues involved. Kessler v. Kessler, 33 AD2d 42, 49 (2nd Dept. 2006), appeal dismissed, 8 NY3d 968 (2007). Cf. In re Estate of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 (1974), Gordon v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 148 AD3d 146, 165 (1st Dept. 2017)(the Court considers the following well-established factors: the time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, the skill required to handle the issues presented, the experience, ability and reputation of counsel, the proposed amount of fees, the benefit resulting to the putative class from the services, the customary fee charged for similar services, the contingency or certainty of compensation, the results obtained, and the responsibility involved).This matter was not a garden-variety landlord/tenant proceeding, but rather involved a dispute over the provenance and legality of partition walls in the subject premises. Proof of the illegality of the partition wall and post-trial litigation over the scope of the work needed for Respondent to effectuate a cure and post-trial litigation over the implications of work Petitioner had done in the subject premises entailed, in part, the marshaling of expert testimony and complex argumentation. While Petitioner did not prevail on every aspect of this litigation — which the Court will address below — the Court cannot gainsay the level of expertise on display.Be that as it may, $650.00 an hour is greater than that of similarly-situated attorneys. Based upon the comparable rates mentioned in the decisions the Court cited above, Petitioner’s attorney’s experience warrants the same hourly rate as the attorney in Ninth Ave. Realty LLC, supra, who had an hourly rate in 2012 of $500.00 an hour. With the additional time and experience in the six years elapsing since 2012, the Court finds that $550.00 an hour is a reasonable hourly rate upon which to base an attorneys’ fees award.Petitioner’s attorney’s time records show a total of 56.3 hours expended on this proceeding, broken down by 53.4 hours up to the most recent submission plus 2.9 hours for Petitioner’s attorney’s subsequent work. Respondent’s opposition specifically states that Respondent does not dispute the amount of hours Petitioner’s attorney devoted to this proceeding, which causes the Court to also accept Petitioner’s attorney’s submissions. See, e.g., Trinity Ctr. LLC v. Stern & Mont., LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op. 32565(U),3 (S. Ct. NY Co.).Respondent’s dispute with Petitioner’s cause of action for attorney’s fees involves a distinct issue from the truth of Petitioner’s attorney’s time records. Respondent argues that Petitioner did not prevail on all of the issues in controversy before the Court and that the Court should reduce any award of attorneys’ fees accordingly. Up to the point of the Court’s judgment against Respondent, Petitioner pursued a judgment against Respondent on four grounds: that Respondent maintained the subject premises in a hoarding condition that amounted to a nuisance, that Respondent otherwise engaged in nuisance conduct by his conduct, overcrowding, and illegal alterations. Petitioner prevailed on its cause of action sounding in illegal alterations, but the Court did not find that Petitioner was entitled to a judgment on allegations of hoarding, overcrowding, or nuisance.The Court may reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded with regard to unsuccessful claims. RSB Bedford Assoc. LLC v. Ricky’s Williamsburg, Inc., 112 AD3d 526, 528 (1st Dept. 2013), Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc 3d 368, 380 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2007), affirmed for the reasons stated, 19 Misc 3d 142(A)(App. Term 1st Dept.), leave to appeal from the Appellate Term denied, 2008 NY App. Div. LEXIS 10374 (1st Dept. 2008), 235 E. 83 Realty LLC v. Fleming, 18 Misc 3d 1142(A)(Civ. Ct. NY Co. 2008). The difficulty before this Court is disentangling work requiring a judgment on illegal alteration claims from the claims for which Petitioner was unsuccessful. All the causes of action, including Petitioner’s successful and unsuccessful causes of action, required fixed costs, such as drafting and service of predicate notices and pleadings, Court appearances, and reviews of the Court’s decisions, with the exception of an entry for 0.8 hours on December 22, 2017 for the Court’s inspection of the subject premises to address the dispute between the parties over an alleged hoarding condition at the subject premises. Petitioner did not prevail on the hoarding issue, and the Court shall reduce the number of hours for which Petitioner’s attorney seeks compensation by 0.8 hours.The cause of action Petitioner prevailed on and the causes of action Petitioner did not prevail on all entailed preparation of witnesses, consultation with clients, and trial practice. The Court draws the intuitive inference that the hours billed for these activities were longer due to the unsuccessful causes of action, leaving for the Court to determine how much longer. Although the unsuccessful causes of action outnumbered the successful cause of action, most of the trial was devoted to the illegal alterations issue on which Petitioner prevailed. Petitioner called two witnesses who testified as to the difference between the configuration of the subject premises before and after Respondent’s tenancy. Petitioner called an expert witness to testify on the subject. Respondent testified about the partition walls at issue. The issue on which Petitioner prevailed took up approximately seventy percent of the trial. The Court draws the inference that the issue took up seventy percent of Petitioner’s counsel’s preparation of witnesses and consultation with clients. Petitioner’s counsel bills a total of 3.4 hours of client consultation, 5.5 hours of trial preparation, and 5.6 hours of trial, a grand total of 14.5 hours. Seventy percent of 14.5 hours is 10.15 hours. The Court discounts the remaining 4.35 hours from the ultimate award of attorneys’ fees.Respondent made three post-trial motions. Petitioner made its cross-motion for attorney’s fees that the Court now addresses on Respondent’s first post-trial motion. Respondent prevailed on the first post-trial motion, although Petitioner also prevailed on its cross-motion for fees.1 Petitioner’s attorney bills 10.2 hours for this motion practice. The Court awards Petitioner half of this amount and discounts Petitioner’s award by 5.1 hours.Respondent made a second post-trial motion which Petitioner prevailed on, thus entitling Petitioner to the full amount of fees expended for that motion. Respondent made a third post-trial motion for a stay which the Court granted. Petitioner billed 5.7 hours for that third motion. As Petitioner did not prevail on that motion, the Court discounts 5.7 hours from the total amount.The total number of hours the Court discounts is 15.59. Offsetting the 15.59 against the 56.3 total Petitioner’s counsel bills leaves a balance of 40.71 hours. This amount of hours multiplied by $550.00 an hour leaves a product of $22,390.50. The Court therefore awards Petitioner a judgment against Respondent in the amount of $22,390.50. As Respondent is rent-stabilized, this is a money judgment only, not a judgment of possession. Crystal World Realty Corp. v. Sze, N.Y.L.J. December 19, 2001 at 22:6 (App. Term 1st Dept.).This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.Dated: New York, New YorkAugust 9, 2018
