DECISION/ORDER DIRECTING PENALTY UPON CIVIL CONTEMPT & AFTER LEGAL FEES HEARING PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FEES HEARING On July 12, 2022, this court issued a Decision/Order after inquest, finding that respondent Craig Forlader was in civil contempt of the court’s January 12, 2022 default order, had engaged in harassment against petitioner under the Housing Maintenance Code, and was liable for civil penalties (and the court hereby incorporates by reference the findings made in the July 12, 2022 Decision/Order). In addition, the court set the matter down for a hearing on petitioner’s reasonable legal fees incurred in relation to the civil contempt motion.1 Prior to the first scheduled fees hearing, respondent, appearing with counsel, moved, by order to show cause, to vacate the January 12, 2022 default order. By Decision/Order dated October 27, 2022, this court denied the motion to vacate in its entirety and again scheduled a fees hearing. The hearing was conducted on November 15, 2022 and upon its conclusion, the court reserved decision. At the hearing, Sharmin Piancca, Esq., testified as petitioner’s sole witness. Ms. Piancca testified that she is employed as a staff attorney in the Tenants’ Rights Coalition at Queens Legal Services. She testified that she graduated from the City University of New York (CUNY), School of Law, in May 2020 and that she was admitted to practice law in New York in August 2021. Ms. Piancca testified that she had worked at Queens Legal Services since October 2020, originally pursuant to a student practice order. Ms. Piancca then testified about her resume, which was admitted without objection as petitioner’s Exhibit 1. The court also admitted, without objection, petitioner’s Exhibit 2, a table of attorney fee rates based on experience from Legal Services NYC. Ms. Piancca testified that she was seeking fees at a rate of $250.00 per hour, based on her years of experience. Ms. Piancca next testified about her work on the instant case. She testified that she was assigned to work on the case by her supervisor. She explained that she had experience with representing tenants in affirmative HP actions. Subsequently, Ms. Piancca testified about her timekeeping log, which was identified and admitted as petitioner’s Exhibit 3 (over objection). Ms. Piancca testified that the log was generated from the Legal Server program and that the entries were generated at or around the same time as the corresponding work. When asked about what she did to prepare for the contempt hearing (inquest) and fees hearing, she testified that she did legal research for both beforehand. When asked how the total number of hours she spent on this case compared to others, she testified that this case involved significantly more. On cross-examination, Ms. Piancca was asked about time spent preparing and getting up to speed on the issues related to contempt. She testified that the time spent in March 2022 and into April 2022 was largely dedicated to researching and learning how to make a motion for contempt. She also testified that from July 12, 2022 through the date of the fees hearing, about half her time was spent on the fees issue. DISCUSSION — FEES In the summation at the conclusion of the fees hearing, respondent’s attorney argued that petitioner was not entitled to legal fees because she had failed to proffer a written retainer agreement with Queens Legal Services. However, the requirement for a written retainer agreement to collect fees is relevant only to domestic relations cases subject to 22 NYCRR §1400.3. This provision was “promulgated to address abuses in the practice of matrimonial law and to protect the public.” Julien v. Machson, 245 AD2d 122, 122 [2d Dept 1997]; see also Gross v. Gross, 36 AD3d 318, 322 [2d Dept 2006]; Bishop v. Bishop, 295 AD2d 382, 383 [2d Dept 2002]. Here, the basis for fees is statutory, grounded in NYC Admin. Code §27-2115(o) and Judiciary Law §773 (see Matter of Ferrante v. Stanford, 172 AD3d 31, 39 [2d Dept 2019]). Neither statute requires the submission of a written retainer agreement for attorney’s fees to be awarded. Accordingly, the court does not find that petitioner’s fees are barred by petitioner’s attorney’s failure to produce a written retainer agreement. The court finds Ms. Piancca’s proposed hourly rate of $250.00 per hour to be reasonable for her level of experience. Moreover, the court finds that it is comparable to the rate charged by attorneys with similar experience levels in the community. See Gamache v. Steinhaus, 7 AD3d 525, 527 [2d Dept 2004]; Matter of Klenfner (Shahid), 71 Misc 3d 130[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50298[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2021]; Tameeka Watkins v. NY Uptown Group Inc., Index No. L&T 13392/20 [Civ Ct, Bronx County, October 18, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. #14)]; S.B.H. Realty v. Santana, 57 Misc 3d 1205[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51280[U] [Civ Ct, Bronx County 2017]; Drapala v. Pasan, 55 Misc 3d 1222[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50738[U] [Civ Ct, Kings Count 2017]. The court notes that respondent does not challenge the proposed hourly rate. As for the reasonableness of Ms. Piancca’s time spent on the case (as incorporated in petitioner’s Exhibit 3), the court finds as follows. First, the log admitted as Exhibit 3 includes a total of 102.6 hours. The court notes that 51.7 hours are labeled simply “casework.” Ms. Piancca testified that time listed as “casework” from March 2022 through April 2022 was spent researching and learning how to make a motion for contempt. Overall, there are 13.9 hours during this period attributed only to “casework.” While research is an essential part of legal work (see Continental Indus. Group, Inc. v. Ustuntas, NY Slip Op 31525[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2022]), the court finds that 5 hours for this task was reasonable, rather than the 13.9 hours attributed to “casework” during this period. See e.g. Matter of SR, 169 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2019] [Reduction of fees to account for "unnecessary work performed" is warranted]. Moreover, the court will disallow the remaining 37.8 hours attributed solely to “casework,” as the description is unduly conclusory for the court to assess the nature of the work done. See In re Ury, 108 AD3d 816, 817 [2d Dept 1985], lv denied 64 NY2d 611 [1985]. Finally, the court disallows the time included before the January 12, 2022 default order was issued (a total of 7.2 hours beyond the general “casework” already disallowed), as the fees on a contempt motion should be “directly related” to the contemptuous conduct. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 79 AD3d 1006, 1010 [2d Dept 2010]; see also Children’s Village v. Greenburgh Eleven Teachers’ Union Fedn. of Teachers, Local 1532, 249 AD2d 435, 435 [2d Dept 1998]. With regard to the remaining time included in the log, which totals 48.7 hours, the court finds it to reasonably reflect legal work on this case, considering the difficulty of the issues involved, the skill required, the result obtained by petitioner, and the responsibility involved. See Diaz v. Audi of Am., Inc., 57 AD3d 828, 830 [2d Dept 2008] [Listing factors to be considered in determining fees award]. The court will add an additional 0.5 hours for petitioner’s attorney’s appearance at the fees hearing. Thus, a total of 49.2 hours is permitted at a rate of $250.00 per hour, equaling $12,300.00. See Diaz, 57 AD3d at 830 ["[A] reasonable attorney’s fee is commonly understood to be a fee which represents the reasonable value of the services rendered.”] [Internal citations omitted]. CIVIL CONTEMPT PENALTY Upon the civil contempt findings made in the July 12, 2022 Decision/Order, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §753, respondent Craig Forlader is in civil contempt of the court’s January 12, 2022 default order. Pursuant to Judiciary Law §773 and the July 12, 2022 Decision/Order, the court imposes a fine as a punishment/penalty for civil contempt. The fine totals $12,531.92, which is comprised of $231.92 in actual damages demonstrated by petitioner and $12,300.00 in attorney’s fees. The clerk shall issue a judgment in favor of Queens Legal Services as against Craig Forlader in the amount of $12,300.00. The clerk shall separately issue a judgment in favor of petitioner as against Craig Forlader in the amount of $231.92. Upon full payment of the fine imposed herein and correction of the violation referenced in the January 12, 2022 default order, respondent Craig Forlader shall be purged of civil contempt. This Decision/Order will be filed to NYSCEF and a copy will be emailed to the attorneys for DHPD. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Dated: January 19, 2023
