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

Team 63 v 50
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: RJ Morrow and Mason
Callahan, for Appellant.
Emily Collins and Adrianna
Wurster, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu,
Blaszczyk, Furia
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellant Court of the State of New
York find in favor of the appellant, Chuck Maze
on behalf of the 15 minors. The appellant
properly proved that the Boardman’s deserved to
receive more money for their services rendered
to their clients.
The respondent made good claims that the hours
expended on the case were excessive and the
Boardman’s could have conducted the
interviews in a more efficient way. Therefore,
we uphold the decision of Judge Kheleher to
reduce the reported hours by thirty percent. The
court felt that the defendant proved that the work
done for the interviews was clearly clerical
work. Therefore we find that the fee of $708,000
needs to be reduced by $25,000 based on the
fact that “it is appropriate to distinguish between
legal work, in the strict sense, and investigation,
clerical work…and other work that can be
accomplished by nonlawyers…” as sited in the
case of Rahmey v. Blum.
However, the respondents were more convincing
in that the Judge abused his discretion by not
granting enough money to the Boardman’s. The
appellant properly used the nine adjustments of
the Lodestar test outlined in the case of Rahmey
v. Blum to explain why the Boardman’s
deserved more money. The appellant proved that
the Boardman’s took on a very novel case. This
case was novel due to the fact that Katie made a
third party pay for the pain and suffering of the
minors in the elevator. The appellant properly
cited that in the case in Flemming v. Barnwell, a
precedent was set for our case in that the lawyers
received more money then was asked for
because of the novelty of the case. We the court
award the appellant $100,000 for the novelty of
the case. A legitimate claim was presented that
no other employment could be taken on at the
time due to the fact that they had to complete
two thousand interviews in order to find two
valuable unbiased witnesses to testify that Joe
was a “bad” guy. Therefore we raise the amount
by $10,000 for the preclusion of other
employment. We the court felt that prong four
and five did not apply to this matter, and neither
side proved of what nature and length was the
relationship with their clients. The appellant
adequately proved that the Boardman’s received
more than $46.22 for their clients by proving
that the Boardman’s are protecting New York
citizens by adding an incentive for more
frequent elevator maintenance. The appellant
cited this to the case of Lunday v. The City of
Albany which states that “the plaintiffs success
is the ‘most critical’ factor in determining the
reasonableness of the fee awarded.” Therefore,
we the court grant an increase of $25,000 for
results obtain. The appellant also adequately
proved to the court that this was an undesirable
case due to the fact that it is very hard to prove
Joe to be a bad person because he is beloved by
many. Also the case was undesirable because
they had to complete two thousand tedious
interviews about the same topic. The court
grants the Boardman’s $30,000 due to the fact
that the case was undesirable.
For these reasons we rule to overturn Judge
Khelher’s decision to give more money to the
Boardman’s for their services rendered to their
clients. We therefore we find in favor of the
appellant and awards for attorney fees of
$848,000.
73