Court Reduces Attorneys’ Fee Request 50% Due To Block Billing

On September 5, 2024, Justice Melissa A. Crane declined to award plaintiff the full amount of requested attorneys’ fees and reduced the requested amount by 50%. In EXRP 14 Holdings LLC v. LS-15 Ave LLC, Index No. 652698/2022, the Court had previously granted plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reasonable costs of making a prior motion, and directed plaintiff to submit supporting documentation for its fee request. In making its 50% reduction, the Court explained:

Here, the court declines to award the full $83,019.60 in fees that plaintiff seeks with regard to making its sanctions motion.

First, the submitted time records contain instances of clear block billing. For instance, on 9/27/23, Mr. Fattaruso inputted a 3-hour entry that stated: "Plan & prepare for oral argument on sanctions motion; review & analyze key documents & authority re: same; teleconfs. w/ CF team re: same; attend court hearing re: same" (Doc 263 [Affirmation of Attorneys' Fees] at 17). Additionally, on 9/27/23, Ms. Levine inputted a 3.10-hour entry that stated: "Preparation for court conference and court conference and follow-up regarding same." (Doc 263 [Affirmation of Attorneys' Fees] at 17). Furthermore, on 8/28/23, Mr. Fattaruso inputted a 3.30-hour entry that stated: "Review & revise reply brief in support of sanctions motion and review & analyze key documents, authority, & correspondence re: same." (Doc 263 [Affirmation of Attorneys' Fees] at 13). These block-billed entries prevent the court from determining the reasonableness of the requested attorneys' fees, as it is impossible to differentiate or specify how much time plaintiffs counsel spent on each of the tasks that are listed. In addition, from what the court can glean from these block-billed time entries, moving counsel appears to have billed excessively.

Under these circumstances, the court finds that a 50% reduction to the amount plaintiff requested is appropriate (see e.g. Matter of Silverstein v Goodman, 113 AD3d 539, 540 [1st Dept 2014]; RMP Capital Corp. v Victory Jet, LLC, 139 AD3d 836, 840 [2d Dept 2016]).

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan frequently litigate attorneys’ fees. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning attorneys’ fees.