Negron v Goldman (2006 NY Slip Op 50809(U))

Negron v Goldman

2006 NY Slip Op 50809(U) [11 Misc 3d 144(A)]

Decided on May 4, 2006

Appellate Term, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Larry Negron and Gary J. Negron, Plaintiffs-Respondents-Cross- Appellants,

against

Jane Harriet Goldman, Allan Howard Goldman and Louisa Little, as co- trustees of the Lillian Goldman Marital Trust Under the Will of Sol Goldman, Defendants-Appellants-Cross- Respondents.

Defendants appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered April 23, 2003, after a hearing, which awarded plaintiffs attorneys' fees in a rent overcharge action. Plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the aforesaid judgment as denied their claim for treble damages, and limited the amounts of their recovery of attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest.

Judgment (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered April 23, 2003, modified only to the extent of awarding plaintiffs prejudgment interest on the attorneys' fees from August 22, 2000, and remanding to Civil Court for the recalculation of the prejudgment interest and entry of an amended judgment, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The evidence, fairly considered, supports the court's determination that landlords sustained their burden of establishing that the overcharges were not willful (see Myers v D'Agosta, 202 AD2d 223 [1994]; Matter of Round Hill Mgt. Co. v Higgins, 177 AD2d 256, 257 [1991]). The award of attorneys' fees to tenants pursuant to Rent Stabilization Law § 26-516(a)(4) was reasonable and is not disturbed. The court appropriately evaluated the attorney's testimony and records as to the nature, extent and necessity of the legal services rendered in this long-pending proceeding, which included extensive motion practice and multiple appeals. We modify only to the extent of awarding interest on the attorneys' fees award from August 22, 2000, the midpoint date between January 12, 1998 (the date plaintiffs prevailed upon the underlying overcharge claim) and April 2, 2003 (the date of the attorneys' fees order) (see CPLR § 5001[b]; Solow Mgmt. Corp. v Tanger, 19 AD3d 225 [2005]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: May 4, 2006