From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Danser v. Carrols Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2004
11 A.D.3d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

CA 04-00510.

October 1, 2004.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Peter E. Corning, A.J.), entered May 14, 2003. The order and judgment awarded costs and disbursements in the amount of $139.97 plus attorneys' fees in the amount of $6,710 to defendant Carrols Corporation and Carrols Corporation, doing business as Burger King, against plaintiffs.

Before: Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that part of the motion of Carrols Corporation and Carrols Corporation, doing business as Burger King (defendants), seeking an award of expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred as a result of their having to seek to compel plaintiff Helen Danser to provide updated medical authorizations and to attend a physical examination ( see Matter of Glazer, 134 AD2d 875, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 72 NY2d 828; see generally CPLR 3126; Kimmel v. State of New York, 267 AD2d 1079, 1080-1081). The amount of attorneys' fees awarded is not arbitrary but, rather, is based on a showing of the time expended by defendants' attorneys in connection with defendants' motion ( see Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose, 288 AD2d 14, 15, lv denied 97 NY2d 608; cf. Fontanella v. Fontanella, 167 AD2d 185).


Summaries of

Danser v. Carrols Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 2004
11 A.D.3d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Danser v. Carrols Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HELEN DANSER et al., Appellants, v. CARROLS CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
782 N.Y.S.2d 212

Citing Cases

Optic Plus v. Bausch Lomb Inc.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, we conclude that the court properly granted that part of defendants'…

Imanverdi v. Popovici

Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding costs and attorney's fees to defendant…