John L. Bell, Individually And, Inc. v. White

Decision Date12 December 2013
Citation2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08315,112 A.D.3d 1104,977 N.Y.S.2d 444
PartiesJohn L. BELL, Individually and as Shareholder of Norpco Restaurant, Inc. and Butcher Block of Albany, Inc., Appellant, v. David R. WHITE et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 1104
977 N.Y.S.2d 444
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08315

John L. BELL, Individually and as Shareholder of Norpco Restaurant, Inc. and Butcher Block of Albany, Inc., Appellant,
v.
David R. WHITE et al., Respondents.

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

Dec. 12, 2013.



Viscardi Howe & Rudgers, LLP, Ticonderoga (James A. Brooks, Lake Placid, of counsel), for appellant.

Feeney, Centi & Mackey, Albany (Daniel J. Centi of counsel), for respondents.


Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, SPAIN and GARRY, JJ.

SPAIN, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Tomlinson, J.), entered April 25, 2012 in Albany County, which, among other things, awarded counsel fees to defendants,

[977 N.Y.S.2d 445]

and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

The facts of this shareholder derivative action are set forth more fully in the prior decisions of this Court (Bell v. White, 77 A.D.3d 1241, 909 N.Y.S.2d 798 [2010], lv. dismissed 16 N.Y.3d 888, 924 N.Y.S.2d 317, 948 N.E.2d 923 [2011], 55 A.D.3d 1211, 867 N.Y.S.2d 729 [2008] ). The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement in 2005 that, among other things, required defendant David R. White to purchase plaintiff's ownership interest in defendant Norpco Restaurant, Inc., using a share price set by appraisers. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's subsequent attempts to set the stipulation aside and, on defendants' motion, ordered that it be enforced. Plaintiff remained unwilling to comply with the stipulation, prompting Supreme Court to hold him in contempt and make an award of counsel fees to defendants. This Court upheld both the enforcement and contempt orders upon appeal (55 A.D.3d at 1214–1215, 867 N.Y.S.2d 729).

The parties appeared before Supreme Court in 2009 so that the amount of the fee award could be determined, and stipulated to the admission of invoices that documented the services provided by defense counsel from June 2006 through March 2009. Defendants also contended that they were entitled to reimbursement for their counsel's efforts to obtain a fee award, and submitted additional documentation covering the period from April 2009 to July 2009. Supreme Court thereafter determined that defendants were entitled to fees for legal work performed for both periods, i.e., between June 2006 and July 2009, and made a fee award of $64,205.55. Because plaintiff was deprived of the agreed-upon opportunity to request a hearing on the reasonableness of the underlying fees, this Court upheld the scope of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bell v. White
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 3, 2016
    ...thereon.The facts of this protracted litigation have been fully articulated in three previous decisions of this Court (112 A.D.3d 1104, 977 N.Y.S.2d 444 [2013], lv. dismissed 23 N.Y.3d 984, 990 N.Y.S.2d 462, 13 N.E.3d 1048 [2014], 77 A.D.3d 1241, 909 N.Y.S.2d 798 [2010], lv. dismissed 16 N.......
  • Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. v. Point Prop. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 19, 2017
    ...failure to offer evidence upon the scheduled hearing date should not now inure to defendants' benefit (see Bell v. White, 112 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 977 N.Y.S.2d 444 [2013], lv. dismissed23 N.Y.3d 984, 990 N.Y.S.2d 462, 13 N.E.3d 1048 [2014] ). I find no abuse of Supreme Court's discretion rela......
  • Gottlieb v. Gottlieb
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 24, 2016
    ...loss or injury as a result of a contempt are routinely awarded as part of the fine (Judiciary Law § 773, see Bell v. White, 112 A.D.3d 1104, 977 N.Y.S.2d 444 [3d Dept.2013], lv. dismissed 23 N.Y.3d 984, 990 N.Y.S.2d 462, 13 N.E.3d 1048 [2014] ). These may include the legal fees incurred in ......
  • McKay v. Vill. of Endicott
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 24, 2016
    ...claim that Supreme Court erred in calculating the amount of retroactive benefits awarded in the 2014 judgment (see Bell v. White, 112 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 977 N.Y.S.2d 444 [2013], lv. dismissed 23 N.Y.3d 984, 990 N.Y.S.2d 462, 13 N.E.3d 1048 [2014] ; see e.g. Matter of Hickey v. Sinnott, 277 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT