Court Opinion

ID: 9950820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:16.332914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:50.702179
License: Public Domain

Jaquez v Tietz
               2024 NY Slip Op 30767(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154613/2022
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 154613/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                             PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X    INDEX NO.          154613/2022
                LUCIA JAQUEZ,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE        03/04/20241
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.      001 002
                                                 -v-
                DANIEL TIETZ, as Commissioner of the New York State
                Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
                GARY JENKINS, as Commissioner of the New York City                                        MOTION
                Human Resources Administration
                                              Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
            15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35
            were read on this motion to/for                                            ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)                 .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
            36, 39, 40
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      ATTORNEY - FEES                    .

                      Motion Sequence Numbers 001 and 002 are consolidated for disposition. The petition

            (MS001) is denied as moot and the motion by petitioner (MS002) for legal fees is granted.

            Background

                      Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge the allegedly unlawful taking of

            $7,303.60 by respondent the Human Resources Administration (“HRA”). She claims that this

            amount constituted Social Security benefits and that HRA conducted a hearing at which it

            1
              The Court observes that this proceeding has been pending for a couple of years before different judges. Although
            this proceeding was only recently assigned to the undersigned, the Court apologizes on behalf of the court system
            for the lengthy delay in the resolution of this proceeding.
                154613/2022 JAQUEZ, LUCIA vs. TIETZ, DANIEL ET AL                                                     Page 1 of 5
                Motion No. 001 002

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154613/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            improperly placed the burden on petitioner rather than HRA to justify the return of this money.

            Petitioner insists that the applicable statute clearly required that the burden be placed on HRA.

                    Petitioner observes that after this proceeding was commenced on June 10, 2022, the New

            York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA”) issued a new decision in

            which they found in petitioner’s favor.

                    Respondents acknowledge that a corrected decision was issued and argue that this

            proceeding is therefore moot. With respect to the issue of legal fees, respondents argue that

            petitioner failed to satisfy the two factors in order for her to recover legal fees under New York

            State’s Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). They insist that petitioner had to show that

            respondents’ position was not substantially justified and that she was the prevailing party.

            Respondents maintain that while petitioner “may” have satisfied the first prong, she did not show

            that she was the prevailing party as she did not obtain a favorable judgment.

                    Respondents also claim that petitioner did not meet her burden to show that she meets the

            qualification for fees under the EAJA (under CPLR 8602[d]). They argue in the alternative, that

            the sums sought by petitioner’s counsel should be reduced in the event the Court decides to grant

            this requested relief.

                    In reply, petitioner questions how respondents could claim that petitioner makes too

            much to qualify for legal fees. She emphasizes that this entire dispute concerns the fact that she

            is the recipient of public assistance and that she was approved for Supplemental Security

            Income. Petitioner insists that individuals who receive public assistance must possess less than

            $2,000 in liquid and non-liquid resources. She also submits documents purporting to show she

            has about $7,000 in assets which is comprised of benefits received from the Social Security

            Administration.

             154613/2022 JAQUEZ, LUCIA vs. TIETZ, DANIEL ET AL                                    Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                             2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154613/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            Discussion

                    On this record, the Court finds that the petition is moot and the only remaining issue is

            legal fees.

                    The Court finds that petitioner met her burden to show that she is entitled to seek legal

            fees under CPLR 8602(d) as she demonstrated that she possesses assets below the maximum

            threshold. The Court observes that there is little doubt on this record, particularly due to

            petitioner’s receipt of public assistance, that she qualifies to seek legal fees under the EAJA. And

            she submitted an affidavit confirming this (NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 at 6).

                    Next, the Court finds that respondents’ initial position was not substantially justified as

            respondents changed their position (and issued a decision in petitioner’s favor) after this

            proceeding was commenced. The central issue remaining in this opinion is whether petitioner

            substantially prevailed.

                    The Court finds that petitioner substantially prevailed under the catalyst theory (see Liu v

            Ruiz, 200 AD3d 68, 158 NYS3d 25 [1st Dept 2021]). Under this theory, a petitioner can seek

            legal fees under the EAJA “on the basis that her commencement of this proceeding catalyzed the

            desired outcome” (id at 74). In the moving papers, petitioner’s attorney submits an affirmation

            that she emailed a request for reconsideration concerning respondents’ determination on April 5,

            2022 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32, ¶ 21). She explains that she assumed the respondents would

            modify their decision as the applicable statute clearly required the burden to be on HRA and not

            on petitioner, meaning there was a clear error at petitioner’s hearing.

                    However, petitioner explains that the statute of limitations was fast approaching (the

            decision after hearing was dated February 2, 2022) and she did not receive a response from

            respondents. So petitioner commenced this petition on May 27, 2022. Based on these

             154613/2022 JAQUEZ, LUCIA vs. TIETZ, DANIEL ET AL                                     Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                             3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154613/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            circumstances, the Court finds that petitioner is clearly entitled to recover reasonable legal fees.

            She did what she was supposed to do—filed the requisite reconsideration request. Petitioner was

            under no obligation to wait until the limitations period expired, hope that respondents agreed

            with her position and risk that she might lose on procedural (timeliness) grounds. Only after

            petitioner filed this proceeding did she get the desired outcome. It should not be that someone

            has to sue in order to get the agency to do the right thing, and so if someone has to sue,

            attorneys’ fees should be awarded.

                   The next question for this Court is the amount of legal fees to award petitioner.

            Petitioner’s attorneys ask for $15,057 in legal fees and attaches both the billing records as well as

            a chart summarizing their fees (NYSCEF Doc. No. 33). Petitioner charged $450 per hour for

            one attorney and $425 for the other attorney who worked on the matter (id.).

                   Respondents do not challenge the time spent; instead, they contend that these rates are

            excessive. The Court finds this argument wholly without merit. Charging $450 an hour while

            practicing law in Manhattan is inherently reasonable. As a point of reference, apparently Big

            Law partners now charging nearly $2,000 an hour, with some charging up to $2,600 (Dan Roe,

            Top Big Law Partners Are Earning More Than $2,400 Per Hour, as Rates Continue to Climb,

            New York Law Journal, Jan. 10, 2024).

                   To be sure, this Court makes no finding that charging $2,000 an hour is reasonable. But

            the point is that claiming that $450 an hour is excessive is not a persuasive argument given the

            current market for billing rates. Moreover, petitioner’s attorneys are experienced attorneys. Ms.

            Jois, who billed for 31.7 of the 37.5 hours billed is a 2007 graduate of Harvard Law School. Ms.

            Biberman, the other attorney who worked on this matter, graduated from Temple Law School in

            2010. The Court is simply unable to find that the amount charged for two attorneys, both of

             154613/2022 JAQUEZ, LUCIA vs. TIETZ, DANIEL ET AL                                     Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                             4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 154613/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            whom have more than a decade of experience, should be reduced. And the Court observes that

            petitioner took ten percent off the bill. The Court finds that given the relatively small amount of

            fees sought, no hearing is required as the fees are, on their face, quite reasonable.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJDUGED that the petition (MS001) is moot in light of respondents’ new

            determination; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED that petitioner is entitled to reasonable legal fees (MS002) in the amount of

            $15,057 plus costs and disbursements and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, in

            favor of petitioner and against respondents, jointly and severally, upon presentation of proper

            papers therefor.

                    3/11/2024                                                             $SIG$
                      DATE                                                        ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED               DENIED   GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             154613/2022 JAQUEZ, LUCIA vs. TIETZ, DANIEL ET AL                                             Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                             5 of 5
[* 5]