Justice Jeffrey Spinner
Plaintiff law firm moved to vacate a prior judgment, and sought leave to respond to Cohen's opposition on the summary judgment motion. The court noted this motion was "virtually identical to that interposed" in Bryan L. Salamone PC v. Russo," though styled by counsel as a motion to vacate, it was actually a motion to reargue. While the motion was vigorously opposed by Cohen, the court questioned whether the motion was served in accordance with its prior directives on defendant. Plaintiff's submissions included justifications of his actions and fees, and a handwritten letter from Cohen's minor child to the law guardian in the matrimonial action, which gave rise to the "astronomical fees" plaintiff demanded. The court, after again reviewing the billing, found it "facially outrageous and…bereft of reasonableness," thus denied plaintiff's application. Further, the court found it was obligated to inquire further into the circumstances surrounding, what plaintiff characterized as the "highly objectionable 12 year old letter," directing counsel to personally appear for an examination under oath regarding all aspects of the subject letter, including how he came into possession of it, and how it related to the collection of a fee for legal services.
