You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER PETITIONER’S SUCCESSFUL FOIL REQUEST MERELY PARROTED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS; THEREFORE ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees associated with his ultimately successful FOIL request for the video of the incident which was the basis for the prison disciplinary proceedings. Attorney’s fees were denied on the ground that the respondent had a reasonable basis for denying the request for the video. However the respondent’s reasons for the denial merely parroted the relevant statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions, which was deemed insufficient:

In denying petitioner’s initial FOIL request and the subsequent administrative appeal, respondent merely quoted the language from the Public Officers Law. It gave no factual explanation or justification for its blanket denial to release the video footage. Although respondent provided an affirmation by its general counsel in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the affirmation once again merely quoted the statutory language and failed to explain or demonstrate how the footage was compiled for any law enforcement purposes. In a conclusory and speculative fashion, the affirmation referenced some investigations and adjudications, but failed to provide any factual details or explanation of same. Moreover, the affirmation failed to detail how the release of the video footage would affect or interfere with said investigations and adjudications. “[R]espondent[], by merely parroting the statutory language and otherwise failing to provide any adequate sort of harm risked by disclosure, ha[s] failed to meet [its] burden of proving that disclosure of the records would interfere with a pending law enforcement investigation” … .

The affirmation was equally deficient with regard to the safety exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), in that it was neither particularized nor specific and failed to articulate an explanation as to how the release of the video footage could potentially endanger or impair the lives of correction officers or their families. Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07277, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In order to deny attorney’s fees after a successful FOIL request, the respondent must demonstrate a reasonable basis for the initial denial of the request. Merely parroting the statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions is not sufficient. The reasons must be fact-based.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL MISCALENDARED THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT DUE TO LAW OFFICE FAILURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment due to law office failure should have been granted. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment had been granted:

The law office failure of miscalendaring dates has been deemed a reasonable excuse … . Here, defendant’s counsel miscalendared the return date of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for July 1, 2021 rather than June 1, 2021. Counsel explained that it is his regular practice to calendar motion dates once a return date is set; to review his calendar daily and on or about the first of each month; and that he had been working part-time at home with a less robust system compared to his office … . Accordingly, defendant proffered a reasonable excuse in the form of law office failure and should not be deprived of its day in court for counsel’s error … .  First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. v Successful Abstract, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07186, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Miscalendaring the return date for the motion for summary judgment was deemed a reasonable excuse for the default (law office failure).

 

,

THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal research contract (LexisNexis) signed by plaintiff-attorney was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable:

A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made, namely, some showing of “an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party” … . Procedural unconscionability examines the circumstances at the time an agreement was entered into, including the commercial setting, whether deceptive or high-pressured tactics were employed, whether a party had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, which party drafted the contract, whether fine print was used in an agreement as to material terms, whether there was an alternative supply for the goods or services in question, the experience and education of the party claiming unconscionability, whether there was disparity in the bargaining power, and whether a contract of adhesion is at issue … . Whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable presents a question of law for the court although it is a fact-based determination … .

… Plaintiff is an attorney, who did not assert any mental deficiencies, but only alleged duress from defendants’ conduct in pursuing his signature on the 2020 Agreement. The urgency underlying plaintiff’s signing the 2020 Agreement, without reading it, apart from promised lower service rates, is unclear. Plaintiff has not demonstrated how there is inequality in the bargaining power in this instance. Plaintiff is on equal footing with the defendants in understanding contract law, as well as the consequences of signing a contract. Moreover, the terms in the 2020 Agreement were similar to the majority of the material terms in the parties’ 2019 Agreement, which plaintiff does not claim was unconscionable. Kaufman v Relx Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 07192, First Dept 12-20-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff-attorney alleged the electronic legal research contract he signed with LexisNexis was unconscionable. The decision explains procedural and substantive unconscionability and held plaintiff, as an attorney, was on equal footing in negotiating the contract.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS WERE FACING SUSPENSION OF THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW WAS NOT PROTECTED AS FAIR AND TRUE LEGAL REPORTING PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74; THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION PER SE, DISPARAGEMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT AND GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (FIRST DEPT).

The Fist Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Civil Rights Law 74 did not protect the statements in defendant’s online ad claiming that plaintiffs were facing suspension of their license to practice law because the litigation referred to in the ad did not mention anything about plaintiffs’ law license. Civil Rights Law 74 protects only “fair and true” reports on judicial proceedings. The complaint stated causes of action for defamation per se, disparagement and violations of the Lanham Act and General Business Law 349:

Civil Rights Law § 74 did not apply to the challenged statements in defendant’s online ads that, in linking to a news article about pending litigation against plaintiffs by a former client in California, asserted that plaintiffs were facing suspension of their license to practice law. The news article did not mention that plaintiffs’ law license was at risk nor did the complaint against plaintiffs seek suspension of their law license. Accordingly, this statement was not shielded from liability as defendant failed to demonstrate that it was a “fair and true” report of a judicial proceeding … . …

Based on defendant’s allegedly false statement that plaintiffs were facing a suspension of their license, plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for defamation per se … . …

… [T]he factual allegations in the complaint were sufficient to sustain causes of action for disparagement, and violations under the federal Lanham Act and General Business Law § 349, at the pleading stage … . Luo & Assoc. v NYIS Law Firm, A.P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 07154, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Civil Rights Law 74 protects only “fair and true” reports on judicial proceedings. Here the statements plaintiffs were facing the suspension of their license to practice law was not mentioned in the article referencing the judicial proceedings, so the statements were actionable as defamation per se, disparagement and violations of the Lanham Act and General Business Law 349.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney attend the lineup identification procedure by sending his paralegal. The paralegal was turned away:

Defendant was deprived of his right to have counsel present at a … postindictment lineup. It is undisputed that defendant had a right to counsel at this lineup, which was conducted at a time when he already had representation. Although defendant’s counsel was notified of the lineup and did not attend, a paralegal employed by counsel attempted to attend the lineup but was turned away by the police.

The attorney did not waive his client’s right to counsel at the lineup by failing to appear. The police should have briefly paused this nonexigent, postindictment lineup, conducted long after the crime … , in order to advise the attorney he needed to attend personally, or to have the paralegal so advise counsel. People v Bennett, 2022 NY Slip Op 07007, First Dept 12-8-22

Practice Point; Defense counsel sent his paralegal to attend his client’s lineup, but the police sent the paralegal away. The police should have informed counsel his presence was required before going ahead with the lineup. Counsel’s failure to attend did not waive his client’s right to have his attorney present.

 

,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGING BILLING FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against defendant attorneys (BSF) alleging BSF billed for expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York:

The complaint stated a limited cause of action for breach of contract against BSF. The complaint sufficiently alleged that BSF overbilled or billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted to practice law in, or based out of, New York, and the documentary submissions do not utterly refute those allegations … . Kaufman v Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, 2022 NY Slip Op 06883, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Here plaintiff stated a cause of action against a law firm alleging the firm billed for unnecessary expenses associated with attorneys not admitted in New York.

 

,

THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION DEFENDANT’S FRIEND PAID DEFENDANT’S LEGAL FEES CREATING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on the ground his attorney had a conflict of interest which deprived him of effective assistance of counsel. The case had gone to the Court of Appeals which held the defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion:

The record supports the hearing court’s factual determination that defendant’s friend Salaam, whom his counsel represented on an unrelated criminal case, and who had initially been a suspect in the murder of which defendant was convicted, did not pay defendant’s legal fees. At the hearing, defendant did not meet his burden of proving the necessary facts by a preponderance of the evidence … . The hearing evidence showed that Salaam physically handed cash to defendant’s attorney for his retainer and for much of the balance of the fee, but that there was no proof as to the ultimate source of the cash. Counsel credibly testified that he viewed Salaam as his contact person and believed that the legal fees were being collectively raised by a group of defendant’s friends and relatives, including Salaam. The court’s finding was also supported by defendant’s recorded calls made while incarcerated, and the fact that Salaam always delivered cash to the attorney while accompanied by other friends of defendant. The evidence also shows that defendant chose and hired the attorney. People v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 06889, First Dept 12-6-22

Practice Point: Defendant alleged his friend paid his legal fees. Defendant’s friend had been represented in another criminal matter by defendant’s attorney and was a suspect in the murder of which defendant was convicted. The evidence at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction did not support the allegation defendant’s friend was the source of the funds paid to defendant’s attorney. Therefore defendant’s argument he was deprived of effective assistance because of his attorney’s conflict of interest was not supported by the evidence.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this traffic accident case should not have been dismissed as a discovery sanction. But defendant’s motion to vacate the note of issue due to plaintiff’s delay in disclosing prior relevant injuries should have been granted. In addition the appellate court ordered plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendants’ attorney $3000:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to the extent of directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126(3). Although the plaintiff initially failed to provide authorizations for the release of medical records relating to pertinent injuries which pre-date the subject accident, the plaintiff did provide date-restricted authorizations for the release of medical records relating to pertinent injuries approximately one week after the defendants requested them. … [D]efendants did not clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff’s discovery-related conduct was willful and contumacious … .

However, in light of the plaintiff’s delay in disclosing information about prior injuries that bear on the controversy and would assist preparation for trial … . the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to the extent of vacating the note of issue … , directing the plaintiff to provide the defendants with authorizations permitting the release of medical records relating to pertinent injuries which pre-date the subject accident, and directing the plaintiff’s attorney to pay the sum of $3,000 to the defendants’ attorney….. Lopez v Maggies Paratransit Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06793, Second Dept 11-30-22

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case plaintiff’s delays in providing information about prior relevant injuries warranted vacating the note of issue and payment of $3000 by plaintiff’s attorney to defendants’ attorney.

 

, ,

​ THE DISCHARGED LAW FIRM HANDLED THE PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR TWO YEARS; ALTHOUGH THE FIRM DID NOT SUBMIT ANY TIME RECORDS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO AWARD THE DISCHARGED FIRM A PORTION OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE AFTER THE CASE SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court abused its discretion in refusing to award attorney’s fees to a law firm (Gross) which represented the plaintiff in a personal injury case for two years before being discharged. The case ultimately settled:

After being retained, Gross filed a no-fault benefits application, referred the plaintiff to several doctors, scheduled and rescheduled independent medical examinations, and helped the plaintiff obtain a presettlement loan. The principal of Gross also asserted that the firm investigated the accident scene, obtained and reviewed medical records and other relevant documents, and “spen[t] a great deal . . . of time” on the phone with the plaintiff “answering his many questions about his claim.” The plaintiff ultimately discharged Gross. In May 2018, the plaintiff retained nonparty Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C. (hereinafter Spektor). In December 2018, Spektor filed a summons and complaint in this action on the plaintiff’s behalf. In July 2020, the plaintiff obtained a $100,000 settlement.* * *

… [I]t cannot be said that the services performed by Gross were of no value … . Although Gross failed to submit time records showing the hours allegedly spent investigating and discussing the claim with the plaintiff, Gross submitted evidence showing that it performed various services in connection with the plaintiff’s case over a period in excess of two years, including, but not limited to, ensuring the plaintiff’s appearances for independent medical examinations to determine the extent of his injuries and the need for additional treatment, and obtaining documentation vital to the plaintiff’s case … . Considering the amount of time spent by Gross working on matters pertaining to the plaintiff’s case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel, we deem it appropriate to award 10% of the net contingency fee to Gross. Jules v David, 2022 NY Slip Op 06696, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to award a discharged law firm a portion of the contingency fee after the case settled. Although the firm did not submit any time records in this personal injury case, it did schedule independent medical exams, review medical records, investigate the accident scene, obtain documents, etc.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE, PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL AGREED DEFENDANT SHOULD STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS DISCUSSED IN A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AGREEMENT TO HAVE DEFENDANT STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should have been present for the sidebar conference about the justification defense in this attempted murder by stabbing case. Defendant claimed he had a heart condition triggered by stress which causes his heart to race until he passes out. Defense counsel argued the condition was relevant to the justification defense because defendant felt he had to stab the victim before he passed out to protect himself. Before the issue was discussed the judge, prosecutor and defense counsel agreed the defendant should step out of the courtroom. The judge ruled the evidence of the heart condition could not come in unless the defendant’s testimony established a connection between the condition and the interaction with the victim:

… [T]he subject of the instant sidebar conference clearly implicated defendant’s peculiar factual knowledge such that his participation might have assisted him in advancing his justification defense to the murder and assault counts. The subject of the conference was whether defendant would be permitted to testify as to a medical (heart) condition with regard to his justification defense. During the sidebar conference the court repeatedly implored defense counsel to explain how defendant’s serious medical condition impacted his assessment of his physical safety. Defendant’s presence at the sidebar conference would have afforded him an opportunity to apprise the court, defense counsel and prosecutor of the exact details of his heart condition in order to demonstrate that it affected his assessment of the circumstances he was confronted with prior to the stabbing incident … . * * *

Although the right to be present at a sidebar conference need not be preserved by an objection … , the right may be waived. Such right may be waived either explicitly or implicitly by defendant … . …

… [D]efendant did not waive the right to be present at the sidebar conference. Contrary to the People’s assertion, defendant did not personally waive his right to be present either explicitly or implicitly. At no time did defendant make an affirmative statement on the record that he did not wish to attend the side bar conference. And no one ever asked him directly. … [H]e was commanded to leave the courtroom so that the sidebar conference could take place in his absence. … [A]t no time was defendant made aware that he had the right to be present at the sidebar conference … . …

… [I]n the absence of any record discussion by the court with counsel and the prosecutor regarding defendant’s right to be present at the sidebar conference, defense counsel’s expression of lack of objection to his client absence from the sidebar conference is not an affirmative statement by counsel confirming that defendant himself was waiving his right to be present at the sidebar conference … . People v Girard, 2022 NY Slip Op 06645, First Dept 11-22-22

Practice Point: Defense counsel agreed to have the defendant step out of the courtroom when the justification defense was discussed in a sidebar conference. Defense counsel’s agreement did not constitute a waiver of defendant’s right to be present. The conviction was reversed.

 

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