From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zamir v. Ben-Harosk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Nov 12, 2020
188 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

12352 Index No. 652320/17 Case No. 2019-5079

11-12-2020

Yaakov ZAMIR, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sharon BEN–HAROSK et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for appellant. Mangan Ginsberg LLP, New York (Michael P. Mangan of counsel), for respondents.


Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for appellant.

Mangan Ginsberg LLP, New York (Michael P. Mangan of counsel), for respondents.

Gische, J.P., Gesmer, Kern, Kennedy, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered May 28, 2019, which granted defendants' motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $35,777.39, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court applied the correct standard for determining the "prevailing party" under a contractual attorneys' fees clause, namely, success on the central claims in the action ( Blue Sage Capital, L.P. v. Alfa Laval U.S. Holding, Inc., 168 A.D.3d 645, 646, 92 N.Y.S.3d 268 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 904, 2019 WL 2041623 [2019] ).

Plaintiff failed to show any injury from defendants' representations to the court that plaintiff would not be prejudiced by bringing new claims in a new action. The court had already ruled that the defects in the existing case would not be remedied by amendment, and sua sponte modified its order to reflect that the new claims were to be brought in a new action. Plaintiff argument that half or more of the $35,000 in fees sought did not pertain to the motion to dismiss itself and therefore are not recoverable, is unavailing. The parties' agreement entitles the prevailing party to all fees "in connection" with the action, and plaintiff has failed to point to any fees not incurred in connection with the action.


Summaries of

Zamir v. Ben-Harosk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Nov 12, 2020
188 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Zamir v. Ben-Harosk

Case Details

Full title:Yaakov Zamir, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon Ben-Harosk et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 12, 2020

Citations

188 A.D.3d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
188 A.D.3d 513
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 6475

Citing Cases

Kolchins v. Evolution Mkts.

"[T]he correct standard for determining the 'prevailing party' under a contractual attorneys' fees clause" is…

Golden Nugget Atl. City v. Wayne C Chan

And the Court rejects defendant's claim that plaintiff is, essentially, only permitted to recover fees for…