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.
Stanley J. CIURA, As Executor of the Estate of Irene Ciura, Deceased, et al., On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Richard MUTO, et al., Defendants.
Robert H. Matheis, et al., Individually and on Behalf of all those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Richard Muto, et al., Defendants.
Zdarsky, Sawicki & Agostinelli, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard Muto, Defendant. (Appeal No. 2.)
The law firm of Zdarsky, Sawicki & Agostinelli (law firm) initially represented defendants Richard Muto and Deborah Muto in the underlying class action, but Supreme Court granted the law firm's motion seeking to withdraw as counsel based on nonpayment of fees. We conclude that the court erred in denying that part of the subsequent motion of the law firm seeking vacatur of the order awarding interim attorneys fees and disbursements to counsel for plaintiffs and the coreceivers in the class action. In awarding attorneys fees in a class action, the court should “ multiply the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate” and should also consider factors such as “the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented [and] the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly” (Matter of Rahmey v. Blum, 95 A.D.2d 294, 303, 466 N.Y.S.2d 350; see also Becker v. Empire of Am. Fed. Sav. Bank, 177 A.D.2d 958, 958-959, 577 N.Y.S.2d 1001). In the absence of a decision by the court explaining with the requisite specificity its reasoning for the amount of attorneys fees awarded, we are unable “to determine whether the award was within the proper exercise of the court's discretion” (Rahmey, 95 A.D.2d at 305, 466 N.Y.S.2d 350), and we also are unable on the record before us to determine the propriety of the amount of disbursements awarded. We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine, upon notice to the law firm, the amount of interim attorneys fees and disbursements to be awarded to counsel for plaintiffs and the coreceivers in the class action following a hearing, if necessary. We have examined the remaining contentions of the law firm and conclude that they are lacking in merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it denied leave to reargue be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed (see Empire Ins. Co. v. Food City, 167 A.D.2d 983, 984, 562 N.Y.S.2d 5) and the order is modified on the law by granting that part of the motion of plaintiff Zdarsky, Sawicki & Agostinelli with respect to the order entered March 29, 2004 and vacating that order and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 22, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)