Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 11, 2021

Gelman v. Borruso

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:19-cv-10649
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Fee PetitionArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gelman v. Borruso, Judge Abrams granted Gelman’s unopposed motion for $30,133.97 in fees and costs from confirming an arbitration award.

Who this affects

Clifford L. Gelman received the approved attorney’s fees and costs, and Thomas Joseph Borruso was subject to the resulting award. The approved fees covered work by attorney Anthony J. Harwood and paralegal Karin Harwood.

What happened

Gelman v. Borruso concerned fees and costs Clifford L. Gelman requested after the court confirmed an arbitration award against Thomas Joseph Borruso. The award followed Gelman’s claims that Borruso had misled him about investments and mismanaged his account.

Gelman requested $29,452.50 in attorney and paralegal fees and $681.47 in costs. Borruso did not oppose the motion. Gelman supported the request with records describing the work performed, the time spent, and the costs incurred.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the motion. The court approved the requested hourly rates, 74.10 hours of work, and $681.47 in costs, for a total award of $30,133.97.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gelman v. Borruso · No. 1:19-cv-10649
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Feb. 11, 2021

Background

Clifford L. Gelman, M.D., petitioned the court to confirm an arbitration award entered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority against Thomas Joseph Borruso. Gelman had alleged in the arbitration that Borruso, his former financial advisor, misled him about investments and mismanaged his account. Borruso did not respond to the arbitration claim.

The court previously confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment. It had also determined that Gelman was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the court proceeding to confirm the award, and directed Gelman to submit an accounting of those amounts. Gelman then filed the motion addressed in this opinion. The motion was unopposed.

Requested Fees and Costs

Gelman sought $29,452.50 in attorney and paralegal fees, calculated using an hourly rate of $500 for attorney Anthony J. Harwood and $95 for paralegal Karin Harwood. He also sought $681.47 in costs for filing, service, and postage expenses, for a total request of $30,133.97.

The court applied the standard that a reasonable fee is generally calculated by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours worked. The person requesting fees must support the request with records showing the date of the work, the time spent, and the nature of the work.

Hourly Rates

The court found Anthony Harwood’s $500 hourly rate reasonable. It considered his more than 30 years of experience in commercial litigation, his customary rate for similar services, and rates approved for attorneys with comparable experience in the Southern District of New York.

The court also found Karin Harwood’s $95 hourly rate reasonable. It noted that courts in the district had approved higher hourly rates for paralegal work and that she had assisted with pleadings, court filings, and correspondence.

Hours and Costs

Gelman requested compensation for 74.10 hours of work. The submitted invoices showed 50.10 hours spent on the petition to confirm the arbitration award and 24.60 hours spent on the fee-and-cost request. The court found the records sufficiently detailed and found no excessive, redundant, or unnecessary work.

The court also approved the requested $681.47 in costs, which consisted of filing fees, service fees, and postage associated with the proceedings.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Gelman’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The approved total was $30,133.97. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 30.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.