MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

days before the trial date the parties had to substantially prepare for trial and that there was a need
for the law firms to assign a large numbers of staff to the project to move it along quickly. In
evaluating the fees, the court allowed only fees for services that served the benefit of the AIP, set the
cap for legal fees at $450/hr., denied all fees related to public relations efforts and the party’s
attempts to try the case in the media; and denied charges attributable to preparation of the fee
applications.
Matter of Lukia QQ., 27 A.D.3d 1021; 812 N.Y.S.2d 162 (3rd Dept. 2006)
Appellate Division reduces fee awarded to Court Evaluator and counsel to AIP because the case was
not complex enough to warrant the amount awarded and the CE and counsel to AIP engaged in
duplicative work.
th
Matter of Nebrich, 23 A.D.3d 1018; 804 N.Y.S.2d 224 (4 Dept., 2005)
Appellate Division remands case for written decision to explain basis for awarding Counsel
fees in accordance with following factors: (1) the time and labor required, the difficulty of the
questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented, (2) the attorney's
experience, ability, and reputation, (3) the amount involved and the benefit flowing to the ward as
a result of the attorney's services, (4) the fees awarded in similar cases, (5) the contingency or
certainty of compensation, (6) the results obtained, and (7) the responsibility involved.
nd
Matter of Catherine K ., 22 A.D.3d 850; 803 N.Y.S.2d 193 (2005 2 Dept)
Appellate Division uphold award of attorneys fees challenged by counsel as insufficient. Court
quotes factors as : (1) the time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the
skill required to handle the problems presented, (2) the attorney's experience, ability, and reputation,
(3) the amount involved and the benefit flowing to the ward as a result of the attorney's services, (4)
the fees awarded in similar cases, (5) the contingency or certainty of compensation, (6) the results
obtained, and (7) the responsibility involved.
nd
In the Matter of Martha O. J., 22 A.D.3d 756; 804 N.Y.S. 2d 387 (2 Dept 2005), modified after
remittitur 33 A.D. 3d 1002; 822 N.Y.S. 2d 734; (2006)
Appellate Division held an appeal in abeyance and remitted four orders awarding attorneys fees back
to Supreme Court Queens County to set forth a clear and concise explanation of the factors
considered in awarding the fees and the reasons for its determinations. The Appellate Division sets
forth the factors to be considered in awarding the attorneys fees as: (1) the time and labor required,
the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented, (2)
the attorney's experience, ability, and reputation, (3) the amount involved and the benefit flowing
to the ward as a result of the attorney's services, (4) the fees awarded in similar cases, (5) the
contingency or certainty of compensation, (6) the results obtained, and (7) the responsibility
involved. Upon return from remittitur the Appellate Division modified the fee awards.
188