Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
QUIK PARK WEST 57 LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. BRIDGEWATER OPERATING CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered April 17, 2024, awarding plaintiffs the principal amount of $1,103,068.92, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 27, 2023, which granted plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from aforementioned order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
The issue of whether the attorneys’ fees award is reasonable is properly before this Court, as we previously ruled solely on the issuance of the award of legal fees under the parties’ agreement, not whether the awarded fees – which had yet to be determined at that point – were reasonable (see Quik Park W. LLC v. Bridgewater Operating Corp., 189 A.D.3d 488, 489, 137 N.Y.S.3d 338 [1st Dept. 2020]). As to the reasonableness of the fees, we find no reason to disturb the court's determination.
Contrary to defendant's contention, a prevailing party, even if only able to show nominal damages, can assert claims for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the parties’ agreement (see Seibel v. Ramsay, 225 A.D.3d 529, 532, 208 N.Y.S.3d 565 [1st Dept. 2024]; Greenman–Pedersen, Inc. v. Berryman & Henigar, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 514, 517, 14 N.Y.S.3d 20 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 913, 2017 WL 2744402 [2017]). While the fee award at issue far exceeds the damages awarded to plaintiffs, defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees were unreasonable, especially given this action's lengthy procedural history. Indeed, in challenging the reasonableness of the fee award, defendant does not point to any of the relevant factors other than the award of nominal damages, which is not a dispositive factor (see JK Two LLC v. Garber, 171 A.D.3d 496, 496, 98 N.Y.S.3d 37 [1st Dept. 2019]; see also Seibel v. Ramsey, 225 A.D.3d at 532, 208 N.Y.S.3d 565).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 3032-, 3033
Decided: November 14, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)