IN RE: Adam OUSTATCHER (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered June 13, 2023, which awarded petitioner attorney's fees and costs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Order, same court and Justice, entered October 4, 2023, which granted petitioner's motion for leave to reargue and respondent's cross-motion for the same relief and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in setting the amount of reasonable fees and costs (see Continental Indus. Group, Inc. v. Ustuntas, 215 A.D.3d 417, 417–418, 185 N.Y.S.3d 672 [1st Dept. 2023]).  The court was not required simply to accept petitioner's excessive fee calculations (see Matakov v. Kel–Tech Constr., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 677, 678, 924 N.Y.S.2d 344 [1st Dept. 2011]).  Instead, the court properly applied an hourly rate which it determined based on its knowledge of comparable rates charged in the community (see Continental Indus. Group, 215 A.D.3d at 418, 185 N.Y.S.3d 672;  see Miele v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 831 F.2d 407, 409 [2d Cir. 1987]).  It also providently exercised its discretion in adjusting the amount of hours to account for petitioner's clearly excessive time entries and inclusion of nonlegal work (see New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 [2d Cir. 1983]).

Petitioner established no basis to conclude that the Justice presiding over the matter should have recused himself, that the court abrogated its duties, or that the court failed to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct.

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.