Opinion
March 18, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Defendant attorneys' computer generated billing statements show the work that was performed each day and contain an abundance of detail that was more than sufficient to support a request of $186,000 for the services of two law firms in collecting a $2.3 million loan. Presented with such facially valid support for the fee request, it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to point out all instances of irregularity or dispute, not just a few examples. Once defendants conceded those few examples and agreed to reduce their fee request by the amount thereof, plaintiffs' vague, conclusory allegations of other errors were insufficient to raise any issue of fact necessitating a hearing, which would have been contrary to the parties' agreement to proceed on papers ( see, Willis v. Willis, 149 A.D.2d 584). We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.