You are here: / / WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S...
,

WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the successful motion to dismiss a civil suit did not mandate the award of attorney’s fees under the CPLR:

… “[U]nder the American Rule as applied to statutory entitlement to attorneys’ fees, the [United States] Supreme Court has held that we follow a general practice of not awarding fees to a prevailing party absent explicit statutory authority”… . * * *

The relevant phrase of CPLR 3220 stating that the claimant “shall pay the expenses necessarily incurred by the party against whom the claim is asserted, for trying the issue of damages from the time of the offer” demonstrates the Legislature’s intent that, where the claimant has not accepted the offer, the commencement of a trial is a condition precedent to imposing liability upon the claimant for the opposing party’s expenses. This phrase also defines the recoverable expenses as those “necessarily” expended “for trying the issue of damages.” CPLR 3220 further provides that those expenses should be determined by the judge “before whom the case is tried.” Accordingly, the plain language of CPLR 3220 does not explicitly authorize an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a party … who merely prevailed in seeking dismissal of a cause of action alleging breach of contract. Even if CPLR 3220 could arguably support an implied right to the attorney’s fees and costs … , the public policy of the American Rule militates against adoption of that interpretation … . Saul v Cahan, 2017 NY Slip Op 06391, Second Dept 8-30-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FEES, CIVIL PROCEDURE, WINNING A MOTION TO DISMISS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER CPLR 3220 (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
There Was a Rational Bases for Fire District Board of Commissioners’ Rejection of Petitioner’s Bid to Supply a Radio Dispatch System—Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Judgment for the Board’s
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS PROVIDED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not Constitute the Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment Required for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER.
PURSUANT TO THE RECENTLY ENACTED FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED... CONFUSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF FINDING THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF...