2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Team 45 v 53<br />
CHUCK MAZE ON BEHALF OF 15<br />
MINOR, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF<br />
ALBANY, NEW YORK, Respondent.<br />
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First<br />
Department, New York<br />
March 10, <strong>2012</strong>, Argued<br />
March 10, <strong>2012</strong>, Decided<br />
COUNSEL: Joe Penna and Emily<br />
LaSpisa, for Appellant.<br />
Allen Perry, for Respondent.<br />
JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole,<br />
Galusha, Muthig<br />
OPINION BY: Last<br />
OPINION<br />
We the Appellate Court <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> New<br />
York find in favor <strong>of</strong> the Respondent. As<br />
cited in the case <strong>of</strong> Matakov v. Kel-Tech,<br />
the “trial court’s fee award in a class action<br />
is entitled to broad deference, and will not<br />
be overturned absent an abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion,<br />
such as mistake <strong>of</strong> law or a clearly erroneous<br />
factual finding.” Here, certain Lodestar<br />
adjustments made by Judge Kheleher<br />
constituted an abuse <strong>of</strong> discretion.<br />
The test for deciding the payment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
attorneys in this case is the Lodestar method.<br />
As described in Rahmey v. Blum, the<br />
Lodestar method “is to multiply the number<br />
<strong>of</strong> hours reasonably expended on the<br />
litigation by the reasonable hourly rate” and<br />
then to make adjustments as necessary. In<br />
the case <strong>of</strong> Flemming v. Barnwell it is stated<br />
that with regards to fee calculations and<br />
adjustments, the “determination as to the<br />
proper amount <strong>of</strong> an award <strong>of</strong> counsel fees<br />
lies largely within the discretion <strong>of</strong> the court,<br />
the discretion is not unlimited.” The<br />
respondent successfully argued that the<br />
lower court abused its discretion in reducing<br />
Boardman’s fees by 30% without providing<br />
an explanation. The Court finds that the<br />
percentage deduction should have been<br />
greater in light <strong>of</strong> negligible public policy<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> Boardman’s victory in the lower<br />
court. The appellant successfully argued<br />
that the attorneys should receive a smaller<br />
award <strong>of</strong> attorney’s fees, and therefore the<br />
Court remands this case to the lower court<br />
with instructions to decrease the total<br />
number <strong>of</strong> hours compensated by an amount<br />
greater than the 30% and to provide detailed<br />
findings supporting the revised deduction<br />
amount.<br />
Additionally, as stated in the case <strong>of</strong><br />
Raymey v Blum, “it is appropriate to<br />
distinguish between legal work and<br />
investigation, clerical work, and other work<br />
that can <strong>of</strong>ten be accomplished by nonlawyers.”<br />
The respondents successfully<br />
showed that the countless interviews<br />
performed by Katie could be considered<br />
clerical work, and because <strong>of</strong> this, we<br />
further instruct the lower court to<br />
compensate any <strong>of</strong> Boardman’s hours billed<br />
for interviews at the reduced paralegal rate<br />
<strong>of</strong> $150 per hour instead <strong>of</strong> $300 per hour.<br />
In conclusion, we remand with instructions<br />
for the lower court to reduce Boardman’s<br />
attorneys fees by a greater percentage and to<br />
reduce Boardman’s hourly wage for time<br />
spent on interviews to the hourly rate for a<br />
paralegal.<br />
71