People's United Bank v. Patio Gardens III, LLC

189 A.D.3d 1623

135 N.Y.S.3d 268 (Mem)

PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK, etc., respondent,

v.PATIO GARDENS III, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.

2019–10589

Index No. 8058/12

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

Argued—October 2, 2020

December 30, 2020

The Law Firm of Elias C. Schwartz, PLLC, Great Neck, N.Y. (Jennifer J. Block of counsel), for appellant.

Frenkel Lambert Weiss Weisman & Gordon, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Keith L. Abramson of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose two mortgages, the defendant Patio Gardens III, LLC, appeals from an order and amended judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Elizabeth H. Emerson, J.), dated December 10, 2018. The order and amended judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon remittitur from this Court by decision and order dated October 5, 2016 ( People's United Bank v. Patio Gardens III, LLC, 143 A.D.3d 689, 38 N.Y.S.3d 262 ), and after a hearing, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of attorney's fees without apportioning the award between the two subject properties and awarded the plaintiff the sum of $75,000 in unapportioned attorney's fees.

ORDERED that the order and amended judgment of foreclosure and sale is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of attorney's fees is denied.

The underlying facts of this foreclosure action are summarized in our decision and order on a prior related appeal ( People's United Bank v. Patio Gardens III, LLC, 143 A.D.3d 689, 38 N.Y.S.3d 262 ). On the prior appeal, we remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination of that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of attorney's fees, including a determination of which fees are attributable to which of the two parcels being foreclosed upon, following the submission of a more detailed affidavit of services rendered and, if necessary, for a hearing on that issue, and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

Following the submission of a supplemental affirmation for legal fees by the plaintiff, and after a hearing, the Supreme Court, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an award of attorney's fees and awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in attorney's fees without apportioning the fees between the two properties. The defendant Patio Gardens III, LLC (hereinafter Patio Gardens),...