Legal Opinion · Dissent
Solla v. Berlin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 5, 2013Published
1Dissent
Sweeny, J. (dissenting).
The petitioner in this appeal asks us *94to revisit the issue of the availability of attorneys’ fees under the State EAJA and our decision in Matter of Auguste v Hammons (285 AD2d 417 [1st Dept 2001]), and adopt the “catalyst theory” as a basis for awarding fees pursuant to the State EAJA. The majority agrees with petitioner’s position. For the reasons stated herein, I must dissent.
Petitioner is a recipient of public assistance from the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA). On September 16, 2010, the city respondents issued a notice of decision reducing the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- New York State Clinical Laboratory Ass'n v. KaladjianNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- MATTER OF WITTLINGER v. WingNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Auguste v. HammonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Wittlinger v. WingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001