Toussie v. County of Suffolk

7 Citing cases

  1. Bedasie v. Mr. Z Towing, Inc.

    13 CV 5453 (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2015) (observing that the prevailing hourly rates for partners in this district in a wage and hour case ranges from $300 to $400), aff'd, No. 15 CV 1892, 2016 WL 2848646 (2d Cir. May 16, 2016); Griffin v. Astro Moving & Storage Co. Inc., No. 11 CV 1844, 2015 WL 1476415, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (collecting cases and awarding a partner at a law firm with 27 years of employment litigation experience an hourly rate of $400 after a FLSA jury trial); Lesser v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, No. 09 CV 2362, 2013 WL 1952306, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2013) (awarding $425 per hour in straightforward commercial litigation to lead partner with 28 years of experience in commercial litigation group of Reed Smith); Ferrara v. CMR Contracting LLC, 848 F. Supp. 2d 304, 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (observing that "[i]n recent years, courts in this district have approved hourly fee rates in the range of $200 to $450 partners, $100 to $300 for associates and $70 to $100 paralegal assistants"); Toussie v. County of Suffolk, No. 01 CV 6716, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (approving fees at the rate of $450 per hour for a partner with 34 years experience). District courts are afforded considerable discretion in reviewing fee applications and determining reasonable hourly rates, in part because of their experience and understanding of the course of the litigation.

  2. Excellent Home Care Servs., LLC v. FGA, Inc.

    13 CV 5390 (ILG) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Hui Luo v. L&S Acupuncture, P.C., No. 14 CV 1003, 2-15 WL 1954468, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2015) (observing that the prevailing hourly rates for partners in this district ranges from $300 to $400), aff'd, No. 15 CV 1892, 2016 WL 2848646 (2d Cir. May 16, 2016); Griffin v. Astro Moving & Storage Co. Inc., No. 11 CV 1844, 2015 WL 1476415, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (collecting cases and awarding a partner at a law firm with 27 years of employment litigation experience an hourly rate of $400 after a jury trial); Lesser v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, No. 09 CV 2362, 2013 WL 1952306, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2013) (awarding $425 per hour in straightforward commercial litigation to lead partner with 28 years of experience ); Ferrara v. CMR Contracting LLC, 848 F. Supp. 2d 304, 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (observing that "[i]n recent years, courts in this district have approved hourly fee rates in the range of $200 to $450 partners, $100 to $300 for associates and $70 to $100 paralegal assistants"); Toussie v. County of Suffolk, No. 01 CV 6716, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (approving fees at the rate of $450 per hour for a partner with 34 years' experience). In this case, plaintiff has not filed any opposition to defendant's fee request.

  3. Stanczyk v. City of N.Y.

    990 F. Supp. 2d 242 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 18 times
    Billing one paralegal at $125 per hour and the remainder at $100 per hour

    Notwithstanding defendants' arguments to the contrary, counsels' requested hourly rates are consistent with prevailing rates in this district for attorneys of similar experience and skill.See, e.g., Ferrara v. CMR Contracting LLC, 848 F.Supp.2d 304, 313 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“In recent years, courts in this district have approved hourly fee rates in the range of $200 to $450 for partners, $100 to $300 for associates and $70 to $100 for paralegal assistants.” (citing Carco Grp., Inc. v. Maconachy, 2011 WL 6012426, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2011) (collecting cases))); Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (awarding $450/hour to an attorney with 34 years of experience); GMG Transwest Corp. v. PDK Labs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108581, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2010) (awarding $450/hour to an attorney with 40 years of experience, and $400/hour to an attorney with 7 years of experience); Rodriguez v. Pressler & Pressler LLP, 2009 WL 689056, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) (awarding $450/hour to a “civil rights lawyer with 17 years of experience”). Accordingly, the Court awards Bellin, Balestriere, Umansky, Burstyn, and the Balestriere paralegals their requested hourly rates.

  4. Stanczyk v. City of N.Y.

    Case No. 11-CV-0249 (FB) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2013)

    Notwithstanding defendants' arguments to the contrary, counsels' requested hourly rates are consistent with prevailing rates in this district for attorneys of similar experience and skill.See, e.g., Ferrara v. CMRContracting LLC, 848 F. Supp. 2d 304, 313 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("In recent years, courts in this district have approved hourly fee rates in the range of $200 to $450 for partners, $100 to $300 for associates and $70 to $100 for paralegal assistants." (citing Carco Grp, Inc. v. Maconachy, 2011 WL 6012426, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2011) (collecting cases))); Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (awarding $450/hour to an attorney with 34 years of experience); GMG Transwest Corp. v. PDK Labs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108581, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2010) (awarding $450/hour to an attorney with 40 years of experience, and $400/hour to an attorney with 7 years of experience); Rodriguez v. Pressler & Pressler LLP, 2009 WL 689056, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009) (awarding $450/hour to a "civil rights lawyer with 17 years of experience"). Accordingly, the Court awards Bellin, Balestriere, Umansky, Burstyn, and the Balestriere paralegals their requested hourly rates.

  5. Leser v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

    09-CV-2362 (KAM)(MDG) (E.D.N.Y. May. 10, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The court therefore finds that $375 is a reasonable rate for Ms. Marlow's services. See Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 01-cv-6716, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (awarding rate of $350 for attorney with approximately 14 years of experience).

  6. Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk

    01-CV-6716(JS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 6, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    Third, Toussie's lawyers have failed to segregate their hours spent traveling (see, e.g., Pl. Ex. 6, Docket Entry 326-8 at 32 (Balber time entry dated 7/17/06 for "[t]ravel to and from Hauppauge")) and are seeking 100 percent compensation for such hours, even though Magistrate Judge Arlene Rosario Lindsay previously advised that only 50 percent of travel time is recoverable. See Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 01-CV-6716, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (Judge Lindsay's order awarding Plaintiffs attorney's fees in connection with their successful spoliation motion); see also Anderson v. City of N.Y., 132 F. Supp. 2d 239, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (stating that travel time is usually compensated at 50 percent of counsel's hourly rate); Hugee v. Kimso Apartments, L.L.C., --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 1096086, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2012) (collecting cases). Counsel have not provided the Court with exactly how many hours of travel time for which they seek attorney's fees, and, thus, the Court is unable to calculate the 50 percent discount (without scouring each time entry in the nearly 450 pages of billing records submitted to the Court).

  7. Barkley v. United Homes, LLC

    05-cv-5362 (KAM) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 30, 2012)   Cited 10 times
    Awarding $400 hourly rate for attorney with 30 years' experience and $450 for attorney with 40 years' experience

    See, e.g., Carco Grp., Inc. v. Machonachy, No. CV 05-6038, 2011 WL 6012426, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2011); Santillan v. Henao, 822 F. Supp. 2d 284, 300 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011); Gutman v. Klein, No. 03 Civ. 1570, 2009 WL 3296072, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). See also Libaire v. Kaplan, No. CV-06-1500, 2011 WL 7114006, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2011) (awarding an hourly rate of $300 to senior associate with 26 years of experience and $200 to junior associate with three years of experience); Toussie v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. CV 01-6716, 2011 WL 2173870, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2011) (awarding an hourly rate of $450 to partner with 34 years of experience) .Given the extensive experience of plaintiffs' attorneys and the complexity of the litigation, the court finds that application of hourly rates at the high end of these ranges is appropriate.