throbber
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 02:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
`
`INDEX NO. 69292/2014
`
`SUPREME COURT: STA TEOI' NEW YORK
`lAS PART WESTCHESTER COUNTY
`J.S.c.
`PRESENT: HON. JOAN B. LEFKOWITZ,
`---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
`TERENCE O'CONNELL,
`
`To commence the statutory time period for
`appeals as of right (CPLR 55 13[a]), you are
`advised to serve a copy of this order, with
`notice of entry, upon all parties.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`JORAM.r. ARIS,
`
`Dcfcndant.
`---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
`
`DECISION & ORDER
`
`Index No: 69292/2014
`
`Motion Return Date:
`November 17,2017
`Motion Seq. #13 & #14
`
`The following papers (e-filed documents 308-321; 327-352) wcre rcad on (I) thc motion
`by plaintiff for an order increasing damages after trial, an order awarding attorneys fees, and an
`ordcr directing discovery on the issue of punitive damages; and (2) the cross-motion by
`defendant for an order setting aside the verdict upon the grounds the verdict
`is contrary to the
`weight of evidence (CPLR 4404[ aD.
`
`Order to Show Cause, Affidavit, Affirmations (Exhibits A-J)
`Affirmation in Opposition
`Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation
`Affirmation (Exhibits A-H) (Plaintiff)
`Affidavit (Exhibits A-K) (Plaintiff)
`
`Upon reading the foregoing papers it is
`
`ORDERED the motion is dcnied; and it is furthcr
`
`ORDERED thc cross-motion is denied.
`
`improperly reprcsented him in an underlying partition
`Plaintiff sues claiming defendant
`action. The complaint sets forth seven causes of action including breach of contract,
`legal
`malpractice and a violation of Judiciary Law 487.
`
`Defendant defaulted in appearing. Plaintiff moved for a default judgment and defendant
`opposed. Thc court (Bellantoni, 1.) granted the motion to the extent of granting a default
`judgment on the causes of action for breach of contract and legal malpractice, and, in effect,
`dismissed the remaining causes of action, including the cause of action alleging a violation of
`Judiciary Law 487.
`
`A trial on damages was held before Judge Bellantoni. Following the completion ofthc
`1 of 3
`
`

`

`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 02:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
`
`INDEX NO. 69292/2014
`
`presentation of evidence plaintiff made a motion seeking to conform the pleadings to the proof
`by submitting the issue of whether defendant violated Judiciary Law 487 to the jury.
`Judge
`Bellantoni granted the motion. The next day plaintiff orally moved to include as damagcs in the
`Judiciary Law 487 cause of action the legal fees plaintiff incurred in prosecuting the present
`action and the legal fees plaintiff incurred in defending a Bronx County action brought by
`defendant.' Although it is not clear from the motion record it appears Judge Bellantoni
`ruled the
`limit of fees that could be included as damages for the Judiciary Law 487 causc of action could
`not exceed $100,000.00.
`Judge Bellantoni also ruled that, because the jury did not hear evidence
`concerning the legal fees incurred in either the present action or the Bronx County action, the
`issue of the legal fees incurred by plaintiff in those actions would not be presented to the jury.
`However, Judge Bellantoni
`ruled a post-judgment motion for an award of attorneys fees would
`be permitted.'
`
`the jury returned a verdict awarding $129,000.00 in damages on the
`On June 16,2017,
`legal malpractice claim and $100,000.00 on the Judiciary Law 487 claim. On January 22, 2018,
`plaintiff entered judgment against the defendant
`in the sum of $528,539.75 ($129,000.00 plus
`$300,000.00 [$100,000.00 trebled pursuant to Judiciary Law 487] plus $99,539.75 in interest).
`
`Plaintiff s Motion
`
`Increase Jury Verdict
`
`The court cannot increase the jury verdict since the jury did not hear sufficient evidence
`concerning legal fees incurred in either the present action or the Bronx County action. Moreover,
`a review of the transcript of proceeding on June 15, 2017, indicates that Judge Bellantoni
`authorized only a post-judgment motion for an award of attorneys fees incurred in the
`prosecution of the present action.
`
`Award of Attorneys Fees
`
`It appears from a review of the reckoning of legal fees attached as Exhibit 0 to the
`present motion some fees awarded as damages by the jury on the Judiciary Law 487 cause of
`action included fees for the prosecution of the present action. To the extent that plaintiff is
`. moving for an award of attorneys fees in addition to those awarded by the jury on the Judiciary
`Law 487 cause of action (which were then trebled), the motion is denied in the discretion of the
`court.
`
`, The Bronx County action, in which defendant sought legal fees from plaintiff for the
`partition action, was dismissed upon grounds that defendant did not properly serve plaintiff.
`
`2 Judge Bellantoni
`
`retired shortly after the trial of this matter.
`2 of 3
`
`

`

`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 05/23/2018 02:31 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 392
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/23/2018
`
`INDEX NO. 69292/2014
`
`Punitive Damages
`
`In its verdict shect the jury was asked whether plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages,
`but the jury was not asked to determine the amount of those damages,
`if awarded. The jury
`determined that plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages but, since it was not asked, the jury did
`not determine the amount of punitive damages. The jury was dismissed without being presented
`with the question of the amount of punitive damages to award. Plaintiff has not advised the court
`whether, and if so, under what circumstances, Judge Bellantoni ordered a bifurcated trial on the
`issue of punitive damages. Moreover,
`the jury which heard the case in chief is no longer
`available to hear a trial ofthe amount of punitive damages to award. Accordingly,
`the branch of
`the motion seeking an order directing discovery on the issue of punitive damages is denied.
`
`Defendant's Cross-Motion
`
`Defendant cross-moves for an order setting aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of
`the evidence.
`
`is contrary to the weight of the evidence when the evidence so
`"A jury verdict
`preponderates in favor of the movant
`that the verdict could not have been reachcd on any fair
`interpretation of the evidence. Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the
`weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary
`balancing of many factors. We accord deference to the credibility determinations of the
`factfinders, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses" (Peterson v. MFA, 155
`A.D.3d 795, 798, 64 N.Y.S.3d 266, 269 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks and citations
`omitted]).
`
`Applying those principles here, the court finds the jury's verdict
`interpretation of the evidence.
`
`is supported by a fair
`
`EN T ER,
`
`Dated: White Plains, New York
`May 23, 2018
`
`3 of 3
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket