Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (2007)

Citation: Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (2007)
Parent Document: Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (2007)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2007-04-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6308349/nestor-v-britt/ ↗

Full Text

948 chars

Lamb’s and Kastner’s work was neither duplicative nor unnecessary. Duplicative work occurs when “a firm bills twice for work done once.” (Goldman v Rosen, 10 Misc 3d 1065[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 52152[U], *1 [Hous Part, Civ Ct, NY County, Dec. 22, 2005], mod on other grounds 15 Misc 3d 135[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50743[U], *1 [App Term, 1st Dept 2007, per curiam].) Regarding the 2006 holdover proceeding, Lamb has a time entry on May 2, 2006 of 4.5 hours for “[preparation of Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss,” and Kastner has 0.7 hours to “[r]eview Draft of Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss.” Similarly, Lamb has entries on May 3 and 4, 2006 for 9.7 hours to prepare the affirmation, and Kastner has entries for 2.4 hours to review it. The billing records also show that, between May 31 and June 13, 2006, Lamb spent 26.3 hours to prepare the reply affirmation, while Kastner devoted 15.8 hours to review, revise, and finalize it.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text