2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 43 v 54
CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF OF 15
MINOR, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF
ALBANY, NEW YORK, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, New York
COUNSEL:
for Appellant.
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
Emily Davis and Devon Drake,
Nikita Mehta and Grace Kockubinski, for
Respondent.
JUDGES: Mallone, Al-Ajmi, Dhami, Vanini,
King, Finan
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York uphold the lower court’s decision and
maintain the fee that Judge Kheleher awarded to
Katie Boardman. A major determining factor of
this case was whether or not Judge Kheleher
abused her discretion in determining the proper
award for Katie Boardman. Both the petitioner
and the respondent spent a major amount of time
detailing with how much the fee should be
augmented or diminished but both sides failed to
prove to us that Judge Kheleher abused her
discretion in administering the Lodestar Method.
The appellant mentioned how in Matakov v.
Kel-Tech Construction Inc. “It is well
established that a trial court’s fee award in a
class action is entitled to broad deference, “and
will not be overturned absent an abuse of
discretion, such as a mistake of law or a clearly
erroneous factual finding.” This was in regards
to the 30% fee reduction of Katie Boardman’s
award by Judge Kheleher without a reason.
However, we have found that this reduction was
completely within Judge Kheleher’s discretion.
This decision is upheld by Lunday v. City of
Albany with the precedent that “We do not
require that the court sets forth item-by-item
findings concerning what may be countless
objections to individual billing items.”
The first adjustment of the Lodestar method
detailed in Rahmey v. Blum is “the novelty and
difficulty of the questions presented.” The
respondent stated that they agree with the fee
award for novelty, while the petitioner
acknowledged the fee award but stated it wasn’t
enough. We have found that Judge Kheleher’s
decision of a $50,000 augmentation due to the
new theory that a “third party could cause pain
and suffering from an industrial accident” is the
correct amount for the novelty of this case. This
decision that it is a novel case is supported by
the fact that there is no case law that would give
precedents to abide by in ruling one way or
another. This lack of case law also increases the
difficulty of the original trial. We can turn to the
case of Fleming v. Barnwell to find that a
similar situation of lack of case law would cause
an increase of the fee award “in part by the
novelty of the case” and “the difficulty involved
in proving” the claim. The increase that Judge
Kheleher made is the correct adjustment.
The second adjustment of the Lodestar method
is “the skill requisite to perform the legal
services.” The petitioners stated that the amount
of requisite skill is high because of the novelty
of the case and disagreed with the $50,000
decrease because it was her first case. The
respondents failed to show that because this was
her first case she deserved the reduction
prescribed by Judge Kheleher. We have found
that the Judge Kheleher’s reduction of $50,000
due to the fact that this was her first case and
there was not much skill requisite is a sufficient
amount. In Fleming v. Barnwell an experienced
lawyer got the requested “award of $425,000”
and his award was granted because of his
experience. Therefore, Katie Boardman’s award
should be reduced because she is inexperienced.
The third adjustment of the Lodestar Method is
“the preclusion of other employment by the
attorney due to acceptance of the case.” The
respondents failed to mention the issue of
preclusion and thus, do not have any complaints
with the fee award of $100,000 issued by Judge
Kheleher. We also agreed with Judge Kheleher’s
decision because none of the precedent cases
have any preclusion involved. We can refer to
the dissent in Matakov v. Kel-Tech which states,
“The trial court ‘is intimately familiar with the
nuances of [a] case, [and] is in a far better
69