The following numbered papers read on this motion by defendant for attorneys fees and costs. PAPERS NUMBERED Amended Notice of Motion-Affidavits-Exhibits EF 58-70, 78 Answering Affidavits-Exhibits EF 72-77, 81-82 Replying EF 79-80 Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after Microsoft Teams conference, it is ordered that defendant’s motion is determined as follows: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages it allegedly sustained as a result of renting certain real property it owned located at 11 High Ridge Lane, Oyster Bay, New York (the “Premises”) to defendant from July 19, 2019 through July 21, 2019. Prior to trial, on February 14, 2022, defendant made an offer to settle the matter pursuant to CPLR 3220 for $6,500.00. Plaintiff did not accept. A virtual bench trial was held on Microsoft Teams, which commenced on April 1, 2022 and concluded on April 11, 2022, after which plaintiff was awarded damages in the amount of $3,910.60. Defendant now seeks attorneys’ fees and costs incurred from February 14, 2022 through April 11, 2022. CPLR 3220 provides in relevant part that in an action to recover damages for breach of contract, at any time at least 10 days prior to trial, a defendant may make “a written offer to allow judgment to be taken against him for a sum therein specified, with costs then accrued, if the party against whom the claim is asserted fails in his defense.” If the plaintiff rejects the offer and thereafter fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff shall pay the expenses necessarily incurred by the defendant, for trying the issue of damages from the time of the offer (see CPLR 3220; Kirschoff-Consigli Constr. Mgt., LLC v. Dharmakaya, Inc., 186 AD3d 585 [2020]). Here, since the amount offered, $6,500.00, is more than the $3,910.60 awarded to plaintiff, defendant is entitled to attorneys fees and costs incurred in trying the issue of damages from the date of its offer pursuant to CPLR 3220 (see Id; Free People of PA LLC v. Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC, 169 AD3d 622 [2019]). It is within the Court’s discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and the attorney bears the burden of establishing the value of the services rendered (see Lancer Indem. Co. v. JKH Realty Grp., LLC, 127 AD3d 1035, 1035-36 [2015]). The court is not bound to accept an attorney’s face value summary of the hours they expended on legal matters, and hours which reflect duplication of services, inefficiency, or padding, are to be disallowed (see Matter of Vitole, 215 AD2d 765 [1995]; Rahmey v. Blum, 95 AD2d 294, 300-01 [1983]). Factors to be considered include the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, and the skill and effectiveness of counsel (see Purmm Cap. Corp. v. 697 Evergreen Ave., Inc., 172 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2019]). The hourly rate charged should be in line with the prevailing rate in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, expertise and reputation (see Blum v. Stenson, 465 US 886, 895-96 n11 [1984]; accord Reiter v. MTA N.Y.C. Tr. Auth., 457 F3d 224, 232 [2d Cir 2006]). In support, defendant submits, among other things, the affirmation of Bradley Siegel, Esq., a copy of the retainer agreement, and a time record of attorney’s fees and costs from February 14, 2022 through April 11, 2022. In his affirmation, Bradley Siegel, Esq., avers that he received his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School in 1987, and has been practicing law in the State of New York for over 30 years. Since 2007, Mr. Siegel has operated The Siegel Law Firm, P.C., focusing on commercial litigation, real estate litigation and transaction, business transactions, and landlord-tenant issues. He states that he is a co-founder of the New York Boutique Lawyers Networking Group, the founder of My Law Forum, a board member of the Jewish National Fund for lawyers, and Chairs the Advisory Council for Nassau Suffolk Legal Services, and is a member of the Executive Board for the Brandeis Association of Lawyers and Judges. Mr. Siegel further states that his associate, Michael Kupferberg, Esq., received his J.D. from St. John’s University in 2013, and has been practicing law in the State of New York since 2014. Mr. Kupferberg joined the Siegel Law Firm in 2017, focusing on commercial litigation and transaction, real estate litigation and transactions, general litigation, and landlord-tenant matters. Mr. Kupferberg has successfully tried matters in the District Court, and has acted as Second Chair in Trials in Supreme Court. Prior to joining The Siegel Law Firm, Mr. Kupferberg practiced in the field of domestic relations, and while in law school interned for the Hon. Norman Janowitz of the New York State Supreme Court, County of Nassau. Defendant seeks to recover a total of $18,265.00, representing 40.1 hours of work, comprised of 18.7 hours by Mr. Siegel, 18.8 hours by Mr. Kupferberg, and 2.6 hours by the firm’s paralegal. The time record reflects that Mr. Siegel billed defendant for his services at a rate of $500 per hour, and that Mr. Kupferberg’s services were billed at a rate of $450 per hour. However, the retainer agreement provided reflects that Mr. Sigel’s time would be billed at $450.00 per hour, and Mr. Kupferberg’s time would be billed between $200-$400 per hour. Adjusting the time record to adhere with the billable rates provided for in the retainer would reduce defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs to $16,390.00. In assessing the reasonableness of a fee application, a court is not required to employ a line-by-line review of the billing records (see New York State Ass’n For Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F2d 1136, 1146 [2d Cir 1983]), but may instead exercise its discretion if it finds that time spent was wasteful, inapplicable, or otherwise unnecessary and may instead use a percentage reduction as a practical means of “trimming fat” (see RMP Capital, Corp. v. Victory Jet, LLC, 40 Misc 3d 1243[A], *10 [2013]; Marion S. Mishkin Law Office v. Lopalo, 767 F3d 144, 150 [2d Cir 2014]; Quarantino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F3d 422, 425 [2d Cir 2009]). Here, given that the Court is constrained by CPLR 3220 to consider only expenses necessarily incurred by the defendant for trying the issue of damages, and taking into account the complexity of the matter and prevailing rates in the community, the Court determines an across-the-board 30 percent deduction is appropriate, resulting in an award of $11,473.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is granted and defendant is awarded the sum of $11,473.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Any request for relief not expressly granted herein is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: January 25, 2023
