Opinion
March 15, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.).
Ordered that the appeal and cross appeal from the order are dismissed, without costs or disbusements; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is modified by (1) adding to the first decretal paragraph thereof provisions reducing the amount of the award by the sums of (a) $875, representing duplicate entries for work performed on February 28, 1997, and May 6, 1997, (b) $2,987.50 for fees charged in connection with work performed on the dismissal of claims asserted under New York State law, and (c) $2,415 for fees requested for which the entries lacked specificity; (2) deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the sum of $685,259.75 and substituting therefor the sum of $678,982.25; and (3) deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph the sum of $246,837.77 and substituting therefor the sum of $240,560.27; as so modified the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal and cross appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal and cross appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal and the cross appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's determination of the reasonable hourly rate to be applied was not an abuse of discretion ( see, 42 U.S.C. § 1988; Northington v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564, 1570; Rum Cr. Coal Sales v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169, 174; see also, National Wildlife Fedn. v. Hanson, 859 F.2d 313, 317; United States Football League v. National Football League, 887 F.2d 408, cert denied 493 U.S. 1071). However, in making reductions to the award, the court erred in failing to deduct the following sums: (1) $875, reflecting duplicate billing entries for the dates February 28, 1997, and May 6, 1997, as conceded by the plaintiff, (2) $2,987.50 for fees charged in connection with work performed on the dismissal of the plaintiff's State-law claims ( see, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434-435), and (3) $2,415 for fees requested for which the billing entries lacked specificity ( see, New York State Assn. for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1147-1148; Meriwether v. Coughlin, 727 F. Supp. 823, 827).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.