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.
IN RE: James GAFFNEY, et al., respondents, v. VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, etc., et al., appellants.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of Kevin J. Plunkett, in his capacity as Village Attorney of the Village of Mamaroneck, dated September 30, 2003, denying the petitioners' application, among other things, to choose their own counsel at the expense of the Village of Mamaroneck in a pending federal litigation, the Village of Mamaroneck and Kevin J. Plunkett, in his capacity as Village Attorney of the Village of Mamaroneck, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), dated July 7, 2004, as fixed the compensation to be paid to the petitioners' counsel at the rate of $250 per hour.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from with one bill of costs to the petitioners.
“In determining reasonable compensation for an attorney, a court will consider the following factors: ‘time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented; the lawyer's experience, ability and reputation; the amount involved and benefit resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee charged by the Bar for similar services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained; and the responsibility involved’ ” (Steiger v. Dweck, 305 A.D.2d 475, 476, 762 N.Y.S.2d 84, quoting Matter of Freeman, 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9, 355 N.Y.S.2d 336, 311 N.E.2d 480). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in fixing the compensation to be paid to the petitioners' counsel at the rate of $250 per hour.
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.
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: September 19, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)