From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Application of Auguste v. Hammons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 26, 2001
285 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

July 26, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J. upon decision of Salvador Collazo, J.), entered December 20, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, in a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding, granted petitioner's application for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and CPLR article 86, awarding petitioner attorney's fees in the principal amount of $11,000, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the application denied.

Peter Vollmer, for a judgment, etc., for petitioner-respondent.

Dona B. Morris, for respondent-respondent.

Vincent Leong, for respondent-appellant.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams, Mazzarelli, Friedman, JJ.


Respondent New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) restored petitioner's Medicaid benefits almost immediately after the commencement of this proceeding. In view of this, Supreme Court dismissed as moot petitioner's request, inter alia, for a judgment declaring unconstitutional respondents' method of terminating such benefits. Nevertheless, Supreme Court, apparently concluding that petitioner was the prevailing party, determined that petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney's fees. This was error.

While petitioner asserts that attorney's fees were authorized because the filing of the petition was the "catalyst" for the remedial action taken by DSS, namely a restoration of his benefits, this theory of recovery has recently been rejected by the United States Supreme Court (Buckhannon Bd. Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, U.S. 121 S.Ct. 1835 [May 29, 2001]; see also, Matter of New York State Clinical Laboratory Assn., Inc. v. Kaladjian, 85 N.Y.2d 346, 354 [standard for prevailing party status under State Equal Access to Justice Act stricter than Federal counterpart]). Since Supreme Court did not issue an enforceable judgment on the merits of petitioner's constitutional claims, there was no material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties sufficient to support an award of attorney's fees (Buckhannon, supra).


Summaries of

In re Application of Auguste v. Hammons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 26, 2001
285 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In re Application of Auguste v. Hammons

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF HENROIT AUGUSTE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. MARVA…

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2001

Citations

285 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
727 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

Solla v. Berlin

MAZZARELLI, J.P. Eleven years ago, in Matter of Auguste v. Hammons, 285 A.D.2d 417, 727 N.Y.S.2d 880 [1st…

Vetter v. Bd. of Educ

The United States Supreme Court has clearly held that a voluntary resolution of a matter "lacks the necessary…