MHL ARTICLE 81 - New York State Unified Court System

nd
Matter of Tijuana M., 303 A.D.2d 681; 756 N.Y.S.2d 796 (2 Dept. 2003)
Appellate Division modifies order awarding attorney fees by increasing the fees, stating that the trial
court failed to analyze the relevant criteria and set forth analysis in written decision. Appellate
Division enumerates relevant criteria and conduct analysis in its opinion.
Matter of Keele, NYLJ, 6/12/01, (Sup. Ct., NY Cty.) (Lehner, J.); Aff’d 305 A.D.2d 145 (1 st
Dept., 2003)
Where counsel for guardian had already been compensated on hourly basis for legal work done,
counsel would not be further compensated on basis of percentage of substantial funds recovered,
especially for non-legal work, such as searching for assets and correcting accounts that could have
been performed by a non lawyer.
Matter of Spingarn, 164 Misc.2d 891; 626 N.Y.S.2d 650 (Sup. Ct., NY Cty., 1995)
Where many hours billed by law firm were unnecessary, duplicative and not responsibility of AIP,
only reduced legal fee paid from AIP’s funds will be allowed based on court's experience and
analysis of time reasonably involved in preparing, processing and presenting petition to court. In
determining reasonableness of legal fees involved, following factors must be considered: hours
reasonably expended; reasonable hourly rate of attorney; nature of services rendered and difficulties
involved. Many hours billed were for unnecessary charges such as numerous attorneys in same firm
reviewing same documents, and for rudimentary research on Article 81 proceedings as well as for
more attorneys than were reasonably necessary appearing in court.
th
Matter of Kunzelmann, 199 A.D.2d 1068; 605 N.Y.S.2d 606 (4 Dept., 1993)
App. Div. finds trial court’s award of fees for AIP’s attorney was not "reasonable in relation to the
results obtained" and was an abuse of discretion, based on totality of representation, including result
obtained, time expended, and attorney's standing in legal community. (No details provided in
opinion)
nd
Matter of O' Day v. Anthony Maggipinto, 229 A.D.2d 583; 646 N.Y.S.2d (2 Dept., 1996)
Where order of appointment provided, inter alia: "that the [guardian] is authorized to pay out of the
funds of the [AIP] such fees and disbursements of attorneys, guardian ad litem, and the doctor as will
hereinafter be fixed by the Court," and attorney billed Guardian directly for fees, substantially over
and above those that court had authorized Estate to pay him, court properly directed attorney to
return improperly-billed funds to Estate.
190