GLACIAL AGGREGATES LLC v. TOWN OF YORKSHIRE ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    693
    CA 10-02317
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    GLACIAL AGGREGATES LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    TOWN OF YORKSHIRE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    JOHN J. FLAHERTY, TOWN ATTORNEY, WILLIAMSVILLE, DAVID J. SEEGER,
    BUFFALO, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MAGAVERN MAGAVERN GRIMM LLP, NIAGARA FALLS (SEAN J. MACKENZIE OF
    COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County
    (Larry M. Himelein, A.J.), entered June 15, 2010. The judgment
    awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees and disbursements in the amount of
    $69,822.89.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed without costs.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment awarding
    plaintiff, inter alia, attorneys’ fees pursuant to 
    42 USC § 1988
     (b)
    as the prevailing party on the cause of action seeking damages
    pursuant to 
    42 USC § 1983
    . We affirm. According to plaintiff,
    defendant violated its due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth
    Amendment of the United States Constitution by depriving plaintiff of
    its vested right to mine the property in question. Following a jury
    trial, plaintiff was awarded damages. This Court reversed the
    judgment, granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and
    dismissed the 
    42 USC § 1983
     cause of action (Glacial Aggregates LLC v
    Town of Yorkshire, 57 AD3d 1362, revd 14 NY3d 127). The Court of
    Appeals, however, determined that plaintiff had established a vested
    right to mine the property, and it therefore reversed our order and
    remitted the matter to this Court for consideration of the issues
    raised but not determined on the appeal to this Court (Glacial
    Aggregates LLC v Town of Yorkshire, 14 NY3d 127, rearg denied 14 NY3d
    920). Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, we rejected
    defendant’s remaining contentions and affirmed the judgment (Glacial
    Aggregates LLC v Town of Yorkshire, 72 AD3d 1644, appeal dismissed 16
    NY3d 760). Thus, contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff is a
    prevailing party pursuant to 
    42 USC § 1988
     (see generally Matter of
    Johnson v Blum, 58 NY2d 454, 457-459).
    Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that
    -2-                           693
    CA 10-02317
    plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 
    42 USC § 1988
     was
    timely inasmuch as it was filed approximately 2½ months after the
    judgment on the verdict was filed and approximately two months after
    Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict (see
    generally Felder v Foster, 86 AD2d 766).
    We note that plaintiff filed the judgment for, inter alia,
    attorneys’ fees with the Cattaraugus County Clerk more than two years
    following the court’s decision on the motion (see 22 NYCRR 202.48
    [a]). We nevertheless further conclude that plaintiff did not abandon
    its motion seeking attorneys’ fees. We take judicial notice of the
    fact that the appeal process continued until approximately six weeks
    before the judgment was filed (Glacial Aggregates LLC, 72 AD3d 1644),
    and we note that plaintiff was not entitled to the fees as a
    prevailing party pursuant to 
    42 USC § 1988
     until that process was
    concluded. We therefore conclude that plaintiff had good cause for
    its delay in filing the judgment (see 22 NYCRR 202.48 [b]; see
    generally Farkas v Farkas, 11 NY3d 300, 308-309). In any event, we
    note that “the matter involves . . . [a] simple judgment for a sum of
    money [that] speaks for itself . . . [and was properly] ‘entered by
    the [County C]lerk without prior submission to the court’ ” (Funk v
    Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367), and there is no time limit to file a
    judgment for a sum of money (see Farkas, 11 NY3d at 309).
    We reject defendant’s contention that the award of attorneys’
    fees should be reduced. The amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees
    awarded pursuant to 
    42 USC § 1988
     lies within the sound discretion of
    the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that
    discretion (see Deep v Clinton Cent. School Dist., 48 AD3d 1125,
    1126), and that is not the case here.
    Entered:   June 10, 2011                        Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 10-02317

Filed Date: 6/10/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016