2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 45 v 53
CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF OF 15
MINOR, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF
ALBANY, NEW YORK, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, New York
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
COUNSEL: Joe Penna and Emily
LaSpisa, for Appellant.
Allen Perry, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole,
Galusha, Muthig
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York find in favor of the Respondent. As
cited in the case of Matakov v. Kel-Tech,
the “trial court’s fee award in a class action
is entitled to broad deference, and will not
be overturned absent an abuse of discretion,
such as mistake of law or a clearly erroneous
factual finding.” Here, certain Lodestar
adjustments made by Judge Kheleher
constituted an abuse of discretion.
The test for deciding the payment of the
attorneys in this case is the Lodestar method.
As described in Rahmey v. Blum, the
Lodestar method “is to multiply the number
of hours reasonably expended on the
litigation by the reasonable hourly rate” and
then to make adjustments as necessary. In
the case of Flemming v. Barnwell it is stated
that with regards to fee calculations and
adjustments, the “determination as to the
proper amount of an award of counsel fees
lies largely within the discretion of the court,
the discretion is not unlimited.” The
respondent successfully argued that the
lower court abused its discretion in reducing
Boardman’s fees by 30% without providing
an explanation. The Court finds that the
percentage deduction should have been
greater in light of negligible public policy
impact of Boardman’s victory in the lower
court. The appellant successfully argued
that the attorneys should receive a smaller
award of attorney’s fees, and therefore the
Court remands this case to the lower court
with instructions to decrease the total
number of hours compensated by an amount
greater than the 30% and to provide detailed
findings supporting the revised deduction
amount.
Additionally, as stated in the case of
Raymey v Blum, “it is appropriate to
distinguish between legal work and
investigation, clerical work, and other work
that can often be accomplished by nonlawyers.”
The respondents successfully
showed that the countless interviews
performed by Katie could be considered
clerical work, and because of this, we
further instruct the lower court to
compensate any of Boardman’s hours billed
for interviews at the reduced paralegal rate
of $150 per hour instead of $300 per hour.
In conclusion, we remand with instructions
for the lower court to reduce Boardman’s
attorneys fees by a greater percentage and to
reduce Boardman’s hourly wage for time
spent on interviews to the hourly rate for a
paralegal.
71