Preview:

Blau v Blau (2005 NY Slip Op 50478(U))
[*1]


Decided on February 4, 2005
Supreme Court, New York County

350264/2001
John E.H. Stackhouse, J.
Pursuant to the directive of the Appellate Division, First Department, this court hereby amends it's prior pendente lite legal fees order of January 16, 2003. I have carefully reviewed the entire billing record of the plaintiff's attorney and have ascertained the correct and reasonable value of the plaintiff's attorneys services.
On October 28, 2003, the Appellate Division determined that the record of this trial court was deficient pertaining to the basis for its determination of the reasonable value of the attorney's services. Although the court unanimously affirmed my order holding the defendant in contempt of court for his failure to pay child support, it sent the case back to me to explain how I arrived at the figures for fees and costs. Therefore, I will spell out the method the court has used to arrive at the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2005_50478.htm[4/21/2013 2:17:33 PM] Blau v Blau (2005 NY Slip Op 50478(U))
present figures which are different from the original figures.
The plaintiff's attorney has represented the plaintiff since August 3, 2001. During that approximately four year period this case was assigned to three different judges: Justice Richard F. Braun, Justice Marjory Fields and this court. Both sides have moved for interim counsel fees repeatedly throughout these proceedings.
On January 16, 2003, this court granted the plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue. After reargument the court granted the plaintiff pendente lite counsel fees of $50,000.00 and costs and disbursements of $25,000.00
The defendant's argument that the request for legal fees was improper when made because it had been denied with prejudice by Justice Braun and denied by Justice Fields overlooks the fact that at the time of those applications the plaintiff had sufficient financial resources to pay her own fees. Unfortunately by the time the case came to me she no longer had the income or assets to pay her attorneys fees. For that reason I granted her application for attorneys fees. In other words her situation had radically changed since 2002.
The court will base it findings on a billing rate of $350.00 from September 2001 to November, 2001 and a billing rate of $325.00 an hour, for the period from November, 2001 to October 28, 2003. [*2]
The plaintiff's attorney received her J.D. from the Rutgers University School of Law where she was the editor of the school's Law Review. She has been engaged in the practice of matrimonial law for almost a quarter of a century. She is admitted to practice in the First and Second Departments of New York and in New Jersey. She is a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Matrimonial Committee, as well as the New York State Bar Association Family Law Section. She is also a member of the New York County Lawyers Association Matrimonial Law Committee.
I find that her hourly rate of $350.00, and then $325.00, was extremely modest and reasonable. I have carefully reviewed her detailed billing records from July 26, 2001 to October 28, 2003. Those bills include the costs of printing and filing briefs for the Appellate Division, First Department; as well as the changes from Real Time Court Reporting, as well as court appearances, arguments, legal research, conferences, letters, and the review of court documents. I find that the plaintiff's attorney has properly specified, in detail, in her affidavit, the time spent, the hourly rate
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2005_50478.htm[4/21/2013 2:17:33 PM] Blau v Blau (2005 NY Slip Op 50478(U))
and the nature and extent of the services that she has rendered.
Therefore, I hereby supplement and update my prior order, amending it to grant pendente lite fees and cost for the period from July 26, 2001 to October 28, 2003 in the amount of $103,666.00 in attorney's fees and $7,722.54 in costs and disbursements. Upon receipt of the $111,388, plaintiff's attorney shall refund to plaintiff $26,275 of the $95,252 which plaintiff had previously paid to her attorney.
In view of the fact that the plaintiff's lawyer has advised the court that there has recently been a break down in the attorney-client relationship, and that she will seek to be relieved as counsel for the plaintiff as of December 31, 2004, I find that the request for reimbursement of the fees and costs that have accrued from October 28, 2003 to December 31, 2004 must await the final determination of this matter. Therefore, I find that the plaintiff's attorney is entitled to a charging lien for the fees, cost and disbursement from October 28, 2003 to December 31, 2004 in the sums of $16,054.00 for attorneys fees and $2,024.00 in costs and disbursements. If at the final determination of this matter plaintiff does not receive any equitable distribution, she shall pay Ms. Stein $18,078 at the rate of $2,000 per month.
The defendant shall pay $111,388 to the plaintiff within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
DATED: February 4, 2005

JOHN E.H. STACKHOUSE, JSC
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2005_50478.htm[4/21/2013 2:17:33 PM]

Download 2005_50478.pdf

New York Law