Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Eminent Domain Law

By ssalkin
August 01, 2019
|

Award of Contingent Attorney's Fees

City of Long Beach v. Sun NLF Partnership NYLJ 5/17/19, p. 29, col. 4 AppDiv, Second Dept. (memorandum opinion)

In a condemnation proceeding, condemnor and condemnee cross-appealed from an award of attorney's fees in the sum of $831,303.22, of expert fees in the amount of $65,100, and of costs in an amount of $2,133.90. The Appellate Division modified to increase the award of attorney's fees to $1,366,250, and otherwise affirmed.

Condemnor initially offered condemnee $2,080,000 as compensation for the taking of real property. Condemnee then retained counsel on a contingency fee basis, where counsel would receive 20% of the first 500,000 of the excess over the city's initial award, and 15% of the balance. Four years after the initial offer, the city offered to pay $6,335,000 as compensation, and made an advance payment in that amount. Condemnee litigated the value of the premises, and Supreme Court determined that $11.8 million constituted just compensation. Condemnee then sought attorney's fees in the amount of $1,956.888 based on the contingency fee arrangement, together with expert fees and costs and disbursements. Supreme Court concluded that the expert fees and costs and disbursements were reasonable, but applied the contingency fee arrangement to the city's second offer of $6,335,000 rather than to the initial offer. As a result, Supreme Court awarded fees of $831,303.22. Both parties appealed.

In modifying, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had erred in applying the contingency fee formula to the city's second offer, crediting counsel's explanation that the relatively low percentages were based on the estimated value of the property over the initial offer. But the court did not award compensation based on the initial offer, and instead held that the award should reflect a 25% contingency fee on the difference between the ultimate award and the condemnor's advance payment. The court noted that in a similar case involving the same parties, the court had deemed a 25% award over the advance payment reasonable, and it applied the same formula in this case, resulting in an award of $1,366,250. The court upheld Supreme Court's award of expert fees and costs.

|

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.