1050 Tenants Corp. v. Lapidus

• Decision Date: 17 June 2014
• Citation: 118 A.D.3d 560,987 N.Y.S.2d 159,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04450
• Parties: 1050 TENANTS CORP., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Steven R. LAPIDUS, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Arthur M. Handler, Plaintiff, v. Steven R. Lapidus, et al., Defendants–Respondents, 1050 Tenants Corp., Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 560

987 N.Y.S.2d 159

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04450

1050 TENANTS CORP., Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Steven R. LAPIDUS, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Arthur M. Handler, Plaintiff,

v.Steven R. Lapidus, et al., Defendants–Respondents,1050 Tenants Corp., Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

June 17, 2014.

Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (David L. Berkey of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Theodore P. Kaplan, New York (Theodore P. Kaplan of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered May 23, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff cooperative's motion to restore the action and for additional attorneys' fees incurred after entry of the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered January 25, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant cooperative's motion to restore the action and for additionalattorneys' fees incurred after entry of the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The cooperative's applications for additional attorneys' fees are not precluded by res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case because such later-incurred fees were not and could not have been sought in the orders and judgments awarding attorneys' fees, and the cooperative's right to such fees had not been necessarily decided ( see Matter of Hunter, 4 N.Y.3d 260, 269, 794 N.Y.S.2d 286, 827 N.E.2d 269 [2005];Jumax Assoc. v. 350 Cabrini Owners Corp., 110 A.D.3d 622, 973 N.Y.S.2d 631 [1st Dept.2013];Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328 [1979];Syncora Guar. Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Sec. LLC, 110 A.D.3d 87, 92–93, 970 N.Y.S.2d 526 [1st Dept.2013];Ferolito v. Vultaggio, 115 A.D.3d 541, 982 N.Y.S.2d 449 [1st Dept.2014] ). Contrary to defendants Steven R. Lapidus and Iris R. Lapidus's contention, the language in the order granting attorneys' fees until the date of eviction was not a limitation. Similarly, the additional attorneys' fees are not precluded by the prohibition against splitting causes of action, because the claims for supplemental fees did not exist when the attorneys' fees were awarded in the judgments, were distinct claims, and were being sought in a single action ( see Sannon–Stamm Assoc., Inc. v. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 678, ...