On December 28, 2025, Justice Crane of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Deutsche Bank AG, N.Y. Branch v. Rosenfeld, 2025 NY Slip Op. 35067(U), reducing an attorney fee award 40% because of block billing and incomplete documentation of attorney qualifications, explaining:
The court declines to award the full $308,949.04 in attorneys’ fees and costs plaintiff seeks on this inquest.
An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees is within the discretion of the court. To assess the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, the court considers several factors, including the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, and the skill and effectiveness of counsel reducing the amount requested to eliminate work that was duplicative or was unnecessarily performed by an attorney, rather than a secretary or paralegal. The requesting party holds the burden of proof in proving the reasonableness of requested fees.
A fee award may also be reduced where there is block billing – the practice of lumping multiple charges together in a single billing entry. Specifically, courts may reduce requested fees when the use of block billing makes it makes it exceedingly difficult for the court to identify whether the amount of time spent on a particular task is reasonable. The court may also reduce fees where the amount requested lacks proof. Thus, a reduction in fees that include blocking billing and lack proof is within the court’s discretion. The time records and entries plaintiff’s counsel submits on this inquest indicate numerous instances of block billing. This ultimately prevents the court from determining the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees, as the court cannot differentiate nor specify how much time plaintiff’s counsel spent on each task listed.
For instance, on February 5, 2025, attorney Michael Schmid billed 8.9 hours, listing: Strategy re Rosenfeld motion for stay and TRO; legal research re opposition to motion to stay and procedures re same; confer with Managing Attorneys’ office re same; review and analyze motion papers re motion for stay and TRO; draft affirmation in opposition to same; email opposing counsel re same.
In addition, plaintiff provides CVs for only three of its attorneys who billed in these invoices, and omitted billing rates and bios for the numerous other attorneys, paralegals, and other support staff that appear in the invoices.
Thus, although defendant does not oppose the part of plaintiff’s inquest that seeks attorneys’ fees, the court exercises its discretion to reduce the requested attorneys’ fees amount. Under these circumstances, the court finds that a 40% reduction of the requested $300,670.50 is appropriate.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).