Appeal from a decision of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Michael J. Pinckney, J.), entered March 29, 2006, deemed from a judgment entered on the same date (see CPLR 5520 [c]). The judgment, after a hearing, awarded landlord $13,087.77 in legal fees and costs in a holdover summary proceeding.

Judgment modified by reducing the amount awarded landlord to the principal sum of $12,318.27; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

After a trial in this summary proceeding brought by landlord, a residential cooperative corporation, based on tenant's violation of a provision of his proprietary lease barring subletting of the premises without the approval of the board of directors, the court awarded landlord possession and stayed execution of the warrant of eviction to allow tenant to cure the violation (RPAPL 753 [4]). Following a cure by tenant, the court granted landlord's application for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to a lease term providing for same, to the extent of ordering a hearing thereon. After the hearing, the court awarded landlord the sum demanded, and tenant appeals.

Attorney's fees may be awarded where "authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule" (Matter of A. G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, 69 NY2d 1, 5 [1986]; see also Hamilton v Menalon Realty, LLC, 14 Misc 3d 13, 14 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]), and where the party seeking fees has "prevailed with respect to the central relief sought" (Nestor v McDowell, 81 NY2d 410, 416 [1993]; e.g. Village of Hempstead v Taliercio, 8 AD3d 476 [2004]). Tenant does not dispute the court's findings that paragraph 28 of the parties' proprietary lease constitutes an attorney's fees provision and that the provision applies to the subject breach (see Chatanow Assoc. v 527 MDN Prop., 161 AD2d 258 [1990]). As to the [*2]amount of the fees and disbursements awarded, tenant contested the award only generally, as inappropriate per se and disproportionate to the violation, and did not specifically challenge the legitimacy of any of the fees and charges alleged by landlord's witness and documented in landlord's summary of fees and costs (see Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]; Matter of Gaffney v Village of Mamaroneck, 21 AD3d 1032 [2005]; Steiger v Dweck, 305 AD2d 475, 476 [2003]), nor the particulars of the accounting set forth therein (see Paganuzzi v Primrose Mgt. Co., 268 AD2d 213 [2000]; Zapco 1500 Inv., L.P. v 1500 Broadway Chili Co., Inc., 12 Misc 3d 127[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50879[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006]).

While we agree that, upon landlord's proof, the court's fees determination was essentially "reasonable" (St. Mark's Realty LLC v O'Dend'hal, 16 Misc 3d 129[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51909[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2004]), we modify the award to reflect a proper calculation of the fees for the total hours claimed at the rates set forth in landlord's proof ($11,642) and of the documented costs ($676.27), after a deduction of $72, which, as the court noted at the hearing, represented a duplicate fees entry.
Golia, J.P., Pesce and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 07, 2008