From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2000
277 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 1, 2000.

November 28, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Rite Aid Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated December 21, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action seeking an award of an attorney' s fee to the extent of awarding an attorney's fee in the sum of $5,000.

Robert C. Crimmins, Riverhead, N.Y. (Linda D. Calder of counsel), for appellant.

Morton Povman, P.C., Forest Hills, N.Y., for respondent (no brief filed).

Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination after a hearing on that branch of the motion which was for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action seeking an award of an attorney's fee.

The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v. Bekerus, 276 A.D.2d 461 [2d Dept., Oct. 2, 2000]; Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore, 255 A.D.2d 543; Granada Condominium I v. Morris, 225 A.D.2d 520; Matter of McGovern v. Koch, 211 A.D.2d 682; Sand v. Lammers, 150 A.D.2d 355). Given the challenges raised by the defendant Rite Aid Corporation, the affirmation of counsel alone is insufficient, and the reasonable amount and nature of the claimed services must be established at an adversarial hearing (see, Matter of Rogers v. Rogers, 161 A.D.2d 766; Matter of Joan Marie D. v. Harold G., 155 A.D.2d 457; Sand v. Lammers, supra).


Summaries of

Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2000
277 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore

Case Details

Full title:CENTRE GREAT NECK CO., RESPONDENT, v. PENN ENCORE, INC., DEFENDANT, RITE…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 910

Citing Cases

KYUSUNG CHO v. YOUN TAE YOO

In any event, in order to make any fee or cost award, "`the court must possess sufficient information upon…

Generation Mortg. Co. v. Gotsch

"the court must possess sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable…