Espaillat v. W. 205 Realty Co., LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-09157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Espaillat v. W. 205 Realty Co., LLC, Judge Caproni stayed Mr. Hassan’s reimbursement obligation and allowed objections to sanctions and rates.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Abdul K. Hassan, whose obligation to reimburse defense counsel was stayed; the order also concerns defense counsel’s possible fees and hourly rates.
What happened
In Espaillat v. W. 205 Realty Co., LLC, plaintiff’s counsel, Abdul K. Hassan, asked Judge Valerie E. Caproni to reconsider and explain a May 29 order imposing sanctions after he failed to appear at a conference.
Hassan argued that he had not received adequate notice of the legal basis for the sanctions. He also questioned whether defense lawyers wanted the fees, whether they could decline them, and whether he could challenge their hourly rates. He further asked the court to explain why it denied a request to postpone the conference or participate by telephone.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni stayed Hassan’s obligation to reimburse defense counsel and allowed him to file objections to the hourly rate and additional arguments about the sanctions or their amount by June 13, 2025. The excerpt does not clearly state whether the reconsideration request itself was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Espaillat v. W. 205 Realty Co., LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09157
- Valerie Caproni
- May 31, 2025
Background
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Abdul K. Hassan, wrote on behalf of plaintiff Alejandro Espaillat seeking reconsideration and clarification of the court’s May 29, 2025 order. That earlier order imposed sanctions connected to Hassan’s failure to appear at a May 23, 2025 conference and required him to reimburse defense counsel. The excerpt does not provide the full May 29 order or independently explain the conduct underlying the sanctions.
Arguments in the Request
Hassan argued that the sanctions order did not identify a legal basis clearly enough to give him proper notice and an opportunity to respond. He said he had addressed sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, while the court apparently relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f).
Hassan also argued that the intended recipients had not requested fees or indicated that they would accept them. He asked the court to allow defense counsel to say whether they sought fees and whether they would provide their hourly rates. He further argued that he should be able to object to any unreasonable rate and that the court should determine a reasonable rate if necessary. Finally, he asked the court to explain why it denied his request to postpone the conference or allow telephone participation.
Court’s Action
The order states that Hassan’s obligation to reimburse defense counsel was stayed. It also requires Hassan to file a letter by June 13, 2025, stating any objections to the rate and providing any additional arguments about the imposition or amount of the sanctions. The excerpt does not clearly state that the court granted or denied the motion for reconsideration and clarification. It therefore supports describing the ruling as a stay and an opportunity to submit objections, rather than as a complete ruling on the sanctions dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.