Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

82
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________ ANDREW ROSA, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 2942 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ GABY DAY, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 2956 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ MIRSAD ISUFI, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 4159 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ ALLEN RUBIN, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 4160 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ DECLARATION OF JAMES I. MEYERSON –RE: FEE & COSTS Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 82

description

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________ ANDREW ROSA, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 2942 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ GABY DAY, PLAINTI

Transcript of Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Page 1: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________ ANDREW ROSA, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 2942 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ GABY DAY, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 2956 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ MIRSAD ISUFI, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 4159 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ ____________________________ ALLEN RUBIN, PLAINTIFF vs 11 Civ 4160 (LBS) THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS ____________________________ DECLARATION OF JAMES I. MEYERSON –RE: FEE & COSTS

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 82

Page 2: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

2

James I. Meyerson, being duly admitted to practice law in and before the Courts of the State of New York and in and before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [among others] and being duly aware of the penalties for perjury and being duly aware of the sanctions which may be imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for the violation of its Rules, affirms and declares under penalty of law and under the threat of the imposition of sanction by this Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Along with Jeffrey A. Rothman, Esq., I am the

attorney for the respective Plaintiffs in the above

captioned and numbered matters.

2. I submit this Declaration in support of the

Application for the award of fees and costs associated with

the accepted Rule 68 Offers of Judgments in the above

matters.

3. In the respective Offers of Judgment, each of the

Plaintiffs was offered a specific sum plus fees and costs

to be determined.

4. Each of the Plaintiffs accepted the respective

Offers of Judgment.

5. Associated with the acceptance, each of the

Plaintiffs’ attorneys (as co-counsel in these matters)

provided to the Defendants’ attorney documentation of the

time which each of us invested in the efforts up to the

point in time of the Rule 68 Offers of Judgment were

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 2 of 82

Page 3: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

3

tendered and, in addition, the documentation of the costs

which each of us incurred in the preparation and

prosecution of the litigations up to the point in time that

the Rule 68 Offers of Judgment were tendered.

6. The above captioned matters arise out of the same

mass arrest of a collective group of individuals by the

Defendant New York City Police Officers as a consequence of

the late evening and early morning July 17 and July 18,

2008 police undercover field operation at the Hot Lap Dance

Club on West 38th Street, New York City, New York.

7. Each of the respective Plaintiffs was employed by

the ownership of the Hot Dane Lap Club.

8. Each of the Plaintiffs alleged that he was

arrested without probable cause for his arrest and simply

because he was rounded up, with others, including patrons

and all of the other employees of the establishment, simply

because each was present in the establishment, and for no

other reason, at the time of the execution of the New York

City Police Department field operation.

9. During the course of the litigations, I

collaborated and worked with Jeffrey Rothman as co-counsel

for each of the Plaintiffs.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 3 of 82

Page 4: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

4

10. Among other matters, I actually drafted pleadings

and/or reviewed pleadings drafted by Mr. Rothman.

11. In addition, Mr. Rothman and I consulted with each

other on a regular and collaborative basis and, as well,

with our respective clients.

12. Each of us reviewed documents which we obtained in

the course of the litigation and litigation related efforts

including documents that we obtained independent of the

formal discovery in these matters and including documents

which we obtained during the course of discovery in these

matters.

13. Throughout collaborative efforts, Mr. Rothman and

I endeavored to avoid redundant work.

14. That being stated, there were certain tasks which,

necessarily, over-lapped, for example our respective review

of documents so that we could discuss such with our clients

and between ourselves as we prepared to move forward with

the litigation, particularly given the delay that occurred

as a consequence of the City Attorney’s inability to

provide us a timely response to our collective early

resolutions settlement demands and, associated therewith,

the schedule set by the Court to complete discovery by

early June, 2012 (a schedule which was set at the initial

conference in this matter in or about December, 2011).

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 4 of 82

Page 5: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

5

15. I am requesting that the Court award me a rate of

$650.00 per hour for a total of 64.2 hours.

II. JAMES I. MEYERSON AND HIS BODY OF WORK

16. I am a sole practitioner. I maintain my law

offices at 64 Fulton Street - Suite # 502, New York, New

York 10038.

17. I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh,

with a B.A. degree, in 1966, and from the Syracuse

University College of Law, with a J.D. degree, in 1969.

18. Upon graduating from law school, I moved to

Charlotte, North Carolina, where I associated with the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Legal Aid Society as a VISTA

volunteer/attorney.

19. In October 1970, I secured a position as an

Assistant General Counsel in the Office of the General

Counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of

Colored People [NAACP] in New York City, where I remained

until 1981, at which time I opened my own office that I

have maintained since then. For most of the time that I was

employed at the NAACP I worked under the auspices of the

General Counsel, the Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones who,

while I was employed, was nominated by President Jimmy

Carter to a position on the United States Court of Appeals

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 5 of 82

Page 6: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

6

for the Sixth Circuit. Eventually, Judge Jones was

confirmed and he remained on the Court, through some period

of senior status, until he retired and became of counsel

for a national firm whose main offices were located in

Cincinnati, Ohio. I also worked under the auspices of the

late Thomas Atkins who, in addition to his distinguished

career as an attorney, served on the Boston City Council,

the cabinet of the governor of Massachusetts, and, as I

recall, on a board of governing individuals at Harvard

University from which he obtained his law degree.

20. I am a member of the Bar of the State of New York.

I am also admitted to the Bars of the Supreme Court of the

United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit, and the United States District Courts for

the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Throughout

my approximately 43 years of practice, I have also been

admitted to practice before the United States Courts of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth

Circuits as well as the United States District Court for

the Northern District of New York.

21. Over my approximately forty three years of

practice, I have been admitted on specific cases to

practice before numerous jurisdictions throughout the

country. These courts include, among others, the United

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 6 of 82

Page 7: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

7

States Courts of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit and the D.C.

Circuit, the United States District Courts for the Western

District of New York, the Eastern District of Arkansas, and

the District of Columbia and federal District Courts in,

among other jurisdictions, Ohio, Florida, and Oklahoma. I

have also practiced before the Supreme Court of Kansas, and

trial courts in the States of Kansas and Arkansas.

22. While with the NAACP, I tried and argued many

cases in numerous federal District and Circuit Courts

throughout the country and, as well, in the United States

Supreme Court. See: Carey v. New York Gaslight Club, Inc.,

44 U.S.54 (1980).

23. My trial and appellate practice have included such

diverse issues as housing and employment discrimination,

public school segregation and discrimination in the

delivery of educational services, due process matters, and

the rights of African American military personnel under the

NATO Status of Forces Treaty. See: Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.

2nd 1211 (D.C.Cir. 1972).

24. While at the NAACP, I tried numerous New York City

school desegregation matters including what has, to date,

been the only successful school desegregation case in New

York City. See: Hart v. Community School Board, 383 F.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 7 of 82

Page 8: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

8

Supp. 699 (E.D.N.Y. 1974)/383 F. Supp. 779 (E.D.N.Y. 1974),

Affirmed 512 F. 2nd 37 (2nd Cir. 1975).

25. Other public school segregation/discrimination

matters which I have tried and argued include: Pride v.

Community School Board # 18, 482 F. 2nd 257 (2nd Cir.

1973)/Pride v. Community School Board # 18, 488 F. 2nd 321

(2nd Cir. 1973)(known as New York City’s “Little Rock” in as

much as white parents sought to block the entry of African

American students to public schools in the Canarsie section

of Brooklyn, New York); Parent Association of Andrew

Jackson High School v. Ambach, 451 F. Supp. 1056 (E.D.N.Y.

1978), Reversed and Modified 598 F. 2nd 705 (2nd Cir. 1979),

738 F. 2nd 574 (2nd Cir. 1984)(which case included a

substantial hearing on cross district line relief involving

school districts on the Nassau County side of the

Queens/Nassau County border proximate to the location of

the Andrew Jackson High School in the Cambria Heights

section of the far eastern area of Queens, New York];

Brody–Jones v. Macchiarola, 503 F. Supp. 1185 (E.D.N.Y.

1979).

26. Moreover while at the NAACP, I successfully tried

a wrongful death civil rights case arising out of the

shooting death of a young African American man in the Star

City, Arkansas jail by a Star City, Arkansas Police Officer

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 8 of 82

Page 9: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

9

in the presence of an Arkansas State Trooper. See: Russ v.

Ratliff, 538 F. 2d 799 (8th Cir. 1976) and Russ v. Ratliff,

578 F. 2d 221 (8th Cir. 1978).

27. In connection with the Russ litigation, I was

responsible for the successful challenge to the United

States Justice Department's then deferral policy to local

and State law enforcement officials in cases involving

alleged criminal conduct by law enforcement officers

resulting in the death of a citizen. The litigation caused

the United States Justice Department to revise the policy

that had been instituted when William Rogers was Attorney

General of the United States (during the Eisenhower

administration) and to make independent assessments rather

than to automatically defer simply because a local

jurisdiction was involved or declined to be involved. See:

NAACP v. Bell, 76 F.R.D.134 (D.C.C. 1977) and NAACP v.

Levi, 418 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1976).

28. Moreover and during that period of time, I worked

with the Chicago based attorneys who conducted the federal

Court litigation arising out of the death of Fred Hampton

by City of Chicago police officers. See: Hampton v.

Hanrahan, 600 F. 2nd 600 (7th Cir. 1979). Such is when and

where I met Jonathan Moore to whom I previously referred

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 9 of 82

Page 10: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

10

[although as I recall he was not himself involved in the

Hampton litigation].

29. I also worked with the attorneys who represented

Rubin “Hurricane” Carter in his efforts to secure his

exoneration and release from prison as a result of his

conviction for the murder. See: New Jersey v. Carter and

Artis, 91 N.J. 86, 489 A. 2nd 1280 (S. Ct. 1982). In that

regard, such is when I met Myron Beldock who has submitted

an Affirmation in support of my rate herein.

30. While at the NAACP, I also represented the then

last surviving “Scottsboro” defendant, Clarence Norris.

Working with attorneys in the State of Alabama and working

with attorneys in the Office of then Alabama State Attorney

General William Baxley, I had the over-all responsibility

for the efforts which achieved a pardon from the State of

Alabama for Mr. Norris and, by such and in a de facto

manner and fashion, for the other eight, then deceased,

“Scottsboro” defendants [of that long ago case of the

1930’s when the world took notice of the racism in the

criminal “justice”/”injustice” system in the State of

Alabama and elsewhere in America].

31. Since I started my own practice in 1981, I have

been continuously engaged in civil litigation in the

federal and state courts. My practice since then has been

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 10 of 82

Page 11: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

11

devoted overwhelmingly to civil and constitutional rights

involving claims involving, among other things, First

Amendment activity and police misconduct.

32. In addition to the matters detailed above, I was

co-counsel [with lead counsel responsibilities] in a

successful challenge to unconstitutional police practices

in Suffolk County that resulted in the malicious

prosecution of two citizens. See: Gentile v. County of

Suffolk, 926 F. 2d 142 (2nd Cir. 1991), Affirming Gentile

and Rydstrom v. County of Suffolk, 129 F.R.D. 435 (E.D.N.Y.

1990). See also: King v. Conde (and Gentile and Rydstrom

v. County of Suffolk), 121 F. R.D. 180 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)

[establishing the procedures to be followed for discovering

law enforcement personnel information in federal civil

rights cases].

33. Along with co-counsel [again where I had lead

counsel responsibilities], I successfully represented

Patrick Antoine, the other, less known, victim of the

police misconduct that resulted in international focus upon

Abner Louima and brutality in the New York City Police

Department. See: Antoine v. City of New York, 98 Civ. 5082

(E.D.N.Y.).

34. As I mention above, my practice also involves

representing individuals whose free speech and

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 11 of 82

Page 12: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

12

associational rights have been infringed and who are the

victims of employment discrimination. See: Velez v. Levy,

401 F. 3rd 75 (2nd Cir. 2005), where I represented the

Plaintiff and where the Second Circuit in part reversed

Judge Koeltl’s dismissal of First Amendment/retaliation

claims brought by a lower east side District # 1 Community

School Board member against former Chancellor Levy of the

New York City public school system. See also: Elliot v.

City of New York, et al., 00 Civ 9308 (S.D.N.Y. 2005),

where I was second seat co-counsel [without primary

responsibilities for the preparation of the prosecution of

the case] in an employment discrimination/hostile work

environment action that ended in a jury verdict in the

Plaintiff’s favor.

35. In addition and while both at the NAACP and, then,

after I left my employment at the NAACP, I successfully

defended civil rights advocates in defamation litigations

commenced against them by individuals who claimed that they

were unjustly engaged in racially discriminatory/racist

conduct. See: Scarpelli v. Rempson, 229 Kan. 210, 626 P.

2nd 785 (S. Ct. Kan. 1981) [where I represented several

former African American University of Kansas medical

students, all of whom had graduated and been licensed as

physicians who were sued for defamation by Dante Scarpelli,

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 12 of 82

Page 13: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

13

formerly the Chairperson of the University of Kansas

Medical School Department of Pathology who had been accused

of racist conduct by the then students in his treatment of

them]; and Paskiewicz v. NAACP, 628 N.Y.S. 2nd 405, 216 A.D.

2d 550 (2nd Dept. 1995), Leave to Appeal denied 641 N.Y.S.

2nd 829, 87 N.Y. 2nd 807, 664 N.E. 2nd 895 (1996)[where the

NAACP and a Suffolk County, New York Branch president were

sued for defamation by a school official whose conduct was

described by the Branch president as racist].

36. A more extensive discussion of my body of work

over the course of my approximately forty three years of

practice is attached hereto. See: Biographical Information,

annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

37. My clients have traditionally been and continue to

be unable to afford the services of a lawyer on an hourly

basis. Few if any have enough money to pay even a minimal

retainer. I have always taken my cases on a contingency

basis and I am compensated based on a portion of any

judgment or settlement obtained, or through fee petitions.

38. I do so with those who, even if not without any

resources, nonetheless, in the totality of their

circumstances have very limited resources, in order to be

able to represent individuals who have been aggrieved by

misconduct and who seek to obtain some sense of redress,

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 13 of 82

Page 14: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

14

vindication, and justice for the perceived violation of

their constitutional and civil rights and the injuries

which they have suffered [whether it be at the hands of

government employees, including but not limited to law

enforcement agents, or at the hands of private

individuals].

39. In the course of my approximately thirty one [31]

plus years as a solo practitioner after leaving the NAACP

in mid-1981, I have probably not charged a client and been

paid by a client on an hourly rate other than perhaps in

two or three matters, the last of which was probably

fifteen to twenty years ago [and those cases as I recall

such did not involve civil rights issues but involved the

very few –almost none, non civil rights cases: collection

of debt and suit against a roofing contractor for

negligence and, as I recall, one case in which I defended a

cooperative relating to an employment issue]. It is my

recollection that in those two or three matters in which I

charged an hourly rate they did not involve civil rights or

constitutional matters but rather were general law practice

matters [commercial in nature as I recall].

40. It is my judgment and opinion, which I have

formed as a consequence of my extensive and substantial

trial and appellate civil rights and constitutional law

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 14 of 82

Page 15: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

15

litigation practice [both while at the NAACP for

approximately eleven years and since then in my own solo

practice for the last approximately thirty one years or

thereabouts] that there is no such thing as a “simple”

civil rights/constitutional law litigation.

41. The simplest civil rights/constitutional law case

is by its nature complex and is always a difficult and

risky and time consuming and costly undertaking.

42. In fact, because of the risk involved in taking

such cases, I do not know too many lawyers, especially

those few who undertake to engage in solo practice in New

York City, who are willing to devote a substantial part of

his or her practice to civil rights litigation, let alone,

as I have done over the course of my career and before

civil rights litigation was deemed to be more acceptable in

the courts and society at large, his or her entire

practice.

43. There is no “simple and straight forward” civil

rights and constitutional law litigation and this case, in

all of its respective aspects, is testament to such.

III. THE HOURLY RATE SOUGHT BY JAMES MEYERSON

44. I am seeking the rate of $650.00 [six hundred and

fifty dollars] per hour.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 15 of 82

Page 16: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

16

45. Such is a rate which my colleague, Jonathan Moore,

Esq., sought and which was found, over the objection of the

City’s attorney, by Judge Alvin Hellerstein of this Court

in the matter of Long vs The City of New York to be a

reasonable rate for my colleague Jonathan C. Moore See:

August 6, 2010 Order in Long v. City of New York (03 Civ

6009/SDNY, annexed hereto as Exhibit B.

46. Recently, moreover, another of my colleagues,

Michael Spiegel, had, without objection from the City

Attorney’s Office in the City of White Plains, been

awarded, as reasonable, a rate of $625.00 in the context of

the resolution of a Rule 68 fee matter in a civil rights

police misconduct litigation encaptioned and numbered

Barbour, et al. vs The City of White Plains, et al. (07 Civ

3014/SDNY). See: May 24, 2011 Opinion and Order of Judge

Robert P. Patterson, annexed hereto as Exhibit C.

47. Respecting the same I believe that Mr. Spiegel and

Mr. Moore are outstanding attorneys with whom I have worked

over the course of time, particularly and especially with

Mr. Moore whom I came to know when he resided in Chicago

and when I was employed in the Office of the General

Counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of

Colored People; and with whom I associated on a number of

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 16 of 82

Page 17: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

17

matters when he first came to New York and with whom I have

continued to associate since that time.

48. That being said my experience and body of work in

the civil rights trial and appellate litigation arena over

the course of my professional career are in my judgment

comparable and the equivalent, if not more extensive than,

that of either Mr. Spiegel or Mr. Moore.

49. I believe that I have practiced for a longer

period of time than either of them; I believe that I have

brought many more police misconduct litigations in this

Court and otherwise than either; and, with humility, I

believe my recorded body of work, both at the federal trial

court level and at the federal appellate level, in civil

rights litigation, generally, and in the area of police

misconduct litigation, specifically, is more extensive and

broader than their respective experiences (without at all

seeking to dismiss or demean or otherwise minimize what I

believe to be is their extraordinary professional careers

and careers and experience and outcomes for which I have

the highest respect).

50. With deep humility, I assert that it is my

judgment that, among attorneys who practice in the Southern

District of New York, I probably have instituted and

litigated as many if not more police misconduct civil

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 17 of 82

Page 18: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

18

rights litigations than any other attorney who has appeared

in this Court to date [during the period of over forty

years that I have been litigating in this Court].

51. One last point respecting rate. Back in September,

1991, I counseled the First Department Assigned Counsel

Corporation. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a copy of a

letter written by Geoffrey Q. Ralls, then President of the

First Department Assigned Counsel Corporation, to Judge

Jack B. Weinstein wherein he wrote in the context of my

work that:

“In 1989 a labor dispute arose when the office terminated the employment of one of the staff attorneys. Mr. Meyerson was recommended as a specialist in the area, and the corporation approached him about advising the Board of Directors, and potentially representing the corporation, if that became necessary. Mr. Meyerson, on a pro bono basis, Responded quickly, thoughtfully, and thoroughly. His advice was invaluable and, indeed, assisted us in defusing a potentially explosive (and litigious situation). While I am unfamiliar with the going rate for legal fees, I believe we were counseled at a level at least equal to that which we would have received from a ‘white shoe’ law firm”. 52. Again, with humility I believe that, now as then

and even more so at this point in time with my

significantly increased experience, expertise, and body of

work, I am entitled to a “white shoe” law firm senior

partner rate the equivalent of which is at least the

$650.00 per hour rate that I am now seeking, in as much as

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 18 of 82

Page 19: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

19

I believe that my work in this matter and in the area of

civil rights trial and appellate litigation has reflected

that which was described of me and my abilities and efforts

back in 1991 - my thoughtfulness, my energy and

resourcefulness as an attorney leading to “invaluable”

advice and an “invaluable” outcome therein as it has

herein.

53. I am providing, contemporaneous herewith, annexed

hereto as Exhibits E and F, respectively, Affidavits from

two [2] distinguished attorneys in the City of New York

whose respective practices in substantial part consist of

trial and appellate civil rights litigation [Myron Beldock,

Esq. and Richard Emery, Esq.].

54. I have known each of the individuals for decades

and I have worked and consulted with them over a

significant portion of my approximately forty three year

professional career. Each of the individuals knows my work

and my experience.

55. Each believes that the six hundred and fifty

dollar [$650.00] hourly rate is, at a minimum, reasonable,

perhaps even modest, and certainly appropriate for a person

of my background and my civil rights trial and appellate

litigation experience, expertise, and body of work.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 19 of 82

Page 20: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

20

56. Those Affirmations were submitted by the attorneys

to this Court within the last two months or thereabouts in

the matter of Branch vs The City of New York, etc., 11 Civ

3048 (JGK)(MHD).

57. That case was police misconduct civil rights

litigation brought against the City of New York and a

number of its police officers.

58. A Rule 68 Offer of Judgment was made by the New

York City Attorney’s Office in that case which described a

sum certain for the Plaintiff plus reasonable fees and

costs, to be determined.

59. Ultimately and as Plaintiff’s attorney, I made the

application for fees in which I requested the rate of

$650.00 per hour for approximately 370 hours.

60. The matter was resolved by the parties for a

modest discount which was based on a modification of my fee

rate, for purposes of achieving the resolution of the

matter without a formal decision by the Court, to $625.00

per hour. The total hours, which included some minimal

hours for work invested in the matter after receipt of the

Offer of Judgment, was discounted by a total of

approximately ten percent.

61. In addition and as a means to resolve the matter,

I voluntarily declined to seek any monies for the time I

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 20 of 82

Page 21: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

21

invested in preparing and submitting the fee and cost

application, the latter of which I believe propelled the

City Attorney’s office to finally engage in discussions and

ultimately the resolution of the matter when the City

Attorney’s Office elected to place a very substantial sum

on the table in response to the total figure that I would

be seeking from the Court and from which I agreed to the

over-all modest reduction.

62. The City was very aware, however, that, if we did

not resolve the matter as we did, I was prepared to submit

the matter to the Court for all of the hours at a rate of

$650.00 per hour plus additional fees for the work that I

had invested in preparing and submitting the fee

application.

IV. THE DOCUMENTED HOURS INVESTED, AND EXPENSES INCURRED, BY JAMES MEYERSON IN THIS LITIGATION 63. Attached hereto as Exhibit G and made part hereof

is the contemporaneous time and cost sheet records made by

me during the course of this litigation and most recently

reviewed by me in the context of the preparation of this

Declaration.

64. I believe that all of the hours, as described and

set forth, were necessary for my effective representation

of the Plaintiffs’ interests throughout these litigations

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 21 of 82

Page 22: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

22

even with the work of my esteemed and valued co-counsel,

Mr. Rothman.

65. If my addition is correct [math was and continues

to be, among others, a weakness], the total of the hours

which I have spent in the preparation and prosecution of

this matter in all of its respects and dynamics -- up to

the date of the service of the Rule 68 Offer of Judgment is

sixty four point two [64.2] hours.

66. In addition to the hours described and set forth

for which I seek a rate of $650.00 per hour for each such

documented hour, I have documented out of pocket expenses

in the total amount of two thousand one hundred and seventy

five dollars and eighty four cents [$2, 175.84].

V. CONCLUSION

67. I am reminded of the thoughts of a great 60’s

jurist, of the then great United States Circuit Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Elbert P. Tuttle. He wrote:

“The professional man is in essence one who provides service...He has no goods to sell, no land to till. His only asset is himself. It turns out that there is no right price for service, for what is a share of a man’s worth? If he does not contain the quality of integrity, he is worthless. If he does, he is priceless. The value is either nothing or it is infinite... Like love, talent is only useful in its expenditure, and it is never exhausted. Certain it is that man must eat; so set what price you must on your service. But never

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 22 of 82

Page 23: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

23

confuse the performance, which is great, with the compensation, be it money, power, or fame, which is trivial.” 68. So I set what price I must for my service and I

ask the Court to adopt such and “so order” the same,

recognizing, if I may be permitted to say so, that,

although there is “no right price” for my service,

nonetheless I must set a price for such, as I do, but that,

in doing so, I do not confuse the value of the services

that I rendered, which value is infinite, with the value of

money, which like the value of power and fame, is trivial.

WHEREFORE and in light of the foregoing, it is

respectfully requested that the Court award me a reasonable

attorneys’ fee in a total amount of forty one thousand

seven hundred and thirty dollars [$41,730.00] which

represents a total of 64.2 hours of service rendered at a

rate of $650.00 per hour for the time which I invested in

this litigation [as described in my time records and

otherwise explained in part herein]; and, in addition the

sum of two thousand one hundred and seventy five dollars

and eighty four cents [$2,175.84] for the out of pocket

expenses and costs which I incurred over the course of the

six year litigation.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 23 of 82

Page 24: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

24

The total reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and

expenses which I am seeking is forty three thousand nine

hundred and five dollars and eighty four cents

[$43,905.84].

DATED: New York, New York June 4, 2012 Respectfully submitted, [s]/James I. Meyerson_____ JAMES I. MEYERSON 64 Fulton Street @ Suite # 502 New York, New York 10038 [212] 226-3310 [212] 513-1006/FAX [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF BY:_____________________

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 24 of 82

Page 25: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit A

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 25 of 82

Page 26: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION James I. Meyerson was born and raised in Syracuse, New York where he attended the public

schools. Mr. Meyerson graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1966. Thereafter he attended

the Syracuse University College of Law from which he graduated with a J.D. degree in 1969. Mr.

Meyerson then moved to Charlotte, North Carolina where he was associated as a VISTA Volunteer

with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Legal Aid Society.

In October, 1970, Mr. Meyerson joined the Office of the General Counsel of the National

Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] in New York City. He remained a

part of the NAACP staff and family until July, 1981 when he opened his own law office which he

continues to maintain at present.

Mr. Meyerson maintains a civil rights trial litigation and appellate practice. He focuses on

matters involving law enforcement misconduct, employment discrimination, and general

constitutional and civil rights issues.

While at the NAACP Mr. Meyerson tried and argued many cases in numerous federal

District and Circuit Courts throughout the country and, as well, in the United States Supreme Court

where he successfully argued Carey v. New York Gaslight Club, Inc. See: 447 U.S. 54 (1980).

Mr. Meyerson's trial and appellate practice has included such diverse issues as housing and

employment discrimination, public school segregation, discrimination in the delivery of educational

services, due process rights, and the rights of military personnel under the NATO Status of Forces

Treaty. See: Holmes v. Laird, 459 F. 2d 1211 (D.C.Cir. 1972).

During his tenure at the NAACP, Mr. Meyerson tried a wrongful death civil rights case

arising out of a police action in Star City, Arkansas. See: Russ v. Ratliff, 538 F. 2d 799 (8th Cir.

1976) and Russ v. Ratliff, 578 F. 2d 221 (8th Cir. 1978). In connection with the Russ litigation, Mr.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 26 of 82

Page 27: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

2

Meyerson successfully challenged the United States Justice Department's deferral policy to local and

State law enforcement officials in cases involving alleged criminal conduct by law enforcement

officers resulting in the death of a citizen causing the United States Justice Department to revise the

policy which had been instituted when William Rogers was Attorney General of the United States

[during the administration of President Eisenhower].See: N.A.A.C.P. v. Bell, 76 F.R.D. 134 (D.D.C.

1975); and N.A.A C.P. v. Levi, 418 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1976).

Moreover, Mr. Meyerson worked with the Chicago based attorneys who conducted the

litigation arising out of the death of Fred Hampton at the hands of City of Chicago police officers:

See: Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F. 2d 600 (7th Cir. 1979). In addition, Mr. Meyerson assisted and

participated in aspects of the defense of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. See: New Jersey v. Carter and

Artis, 91 N.J. 86, 449 A. 2d 1280 (S.Ct. 1982).

While at the NAACP, Mr. Meyerson represented the then last surviving “Scottsboro”

defendant, Clarence Norris. Mr. Meyerson, working with attorneys in the State of Alabama and with

attorneys in the Office of then Alabama State Attorney General William Baxley, had the over-all

responsibility for the efforts which achieved a pardon from the State of Alabama for Mr. Norris, and,

by such and in a de facto manner and fashion, for the other eight, then deceased, "Scottsboro"

defendants.

Mr. Meyerson has tried numerous New York City school desegregation matters including

what has, to date, been the only successful school desegregation case in New York City. See: Hart

v. Community School Board, 383 F. Supp 699 (E.D.N.Y. 1974)/383 F. Supp. 779 (E.D.N.Y. 1974),

Affirmed 512 F. 2d 37 (2nd Cir. 1975).

Other public school segregation/discrimination matters which Mr. Meyerson has tried and

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 27 of 82

Page 28: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

3

argued include: Pride v. Community School Board # 18, 482 F. 2d 257 (2nd Cir. 1973)/Pride v.

Community School Board # 18, 488 F. 2d 321 (2nd Cir. 1973); Parent Association of Andrew

Jackson High School v. Ambach, 451 F. Supp. 1056 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), Reversed/Modified and

Remanded 598 F. 2d 705 (2nd Cir. 1979)/738 F.2d 574 (2nd Cir. 1984); Brody-Jones vs

Macchiarola, 503 F. Supp. 1185 (E.D.N.Y. 1979).

Mr. Meyerson successfully defended four African American graduates of the University of

Kansas Medical School who were sued for defamation by a then member of the faculty at the

University of Kansas Medical Center when, as students, they accused him of being racist. See:

Scarpelli v. Rempson, 229 Kan. 210, 626 P. 2d 785 (S.Ct. Kan. 1981).

After leaving his position at the NAACP, Mr. Meyerson successfully defended the NAACP

and a president of a Long Island, New York Branch of the NAACP both of whom were sued for

defamation when the Branch president described the actions and conduct of a teacher at a local high

school as racist. See: Paskiewicz v. NAACP, 628 N.Y.S. 2d 405, 216 A.D. 2d 550 (2nd Dept. 1995),

Leave to appeal denied 641 N.Y.S. 2d 829, 87 N.Y. 2d 807, 664 N.E. 2d 895 (1996).

Over the course of time, Mr. Meyerson has been involved in ten death cases involving law

enforcement misconduct and/or privately promoted racial violence and, among those cases, he has

conducted six trials.

In that regard, he was a member of the team which represented the family of Michael

Stewart in one of New York City's most high profile police custody death cases. See: Stewart v. The

City of New York, 86 Civ 6979 (S.D.N.Y.). In addition, he successfully represented the wife and

mother of the Howard Beach victims in a litigation which was instituted against the City of New

York and which resulted in some compensation to her as a consequence of that infamous incident in

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 28 of 82

Page 29: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

4

the history of New York City race relations. See: Griffith-Sandiford v. The City of New York, 89

Civ 2869 (E.D.N.Y.).

Among other of the police misconduct "death cases" in which Mr. Meyerson was primarily

responsible was a matter that was cited in the Mollen Commission Report on corruption in the New

York City Police Department [undertaken and issued in the administration of the Honorable David

Dinkins]. The litigation addressed the issue of the failure of the City to effectively oversight the

corruption of its police officers resulting thereby in the death of an Asian American shop owner in a

Brooklyn, New York neighborhood by a corrupt, off duty New York City Police Officer who

utilized his position as a police officer to gain entry into the shop and to commit a robbery and to

murder the shop owner. See: Chan, etc. v. The City of New York, et al., 93 Civ 0587 (E.D.N.Y.).

In addition, Mr. Meyerson worked with attorneys for the Asian American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund in a lawsuit addressing the shooting death of a young Asian American high school

student by a New York City Police Officer. See: Huang, etc. v. The City of New York, 95 Civ 2822

(S.D.N.Y.).

Moreover, Mr. Meyerson represented the family of an arrestee who died while in police

custody at the Manhattan Central Booking facility because of a diabetic shock which he suffered as a

consequence of the failure of the facility custodians to address the arrestee's medical condition. See:

Blair Lawrence, etc. v. The City of New York, 95 Civ 4406 (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Meyerson was co-counsel in a successful challenge to unconstitutional police practices

in Suffolk County which resulted in the malicious prosecution of two citizens. See: Gentile v.

County of Suffolk, 926 F. 2d 142 (2nd Cir. 1991), Affirming Gentile and Rydstrom v. County of

Suffolk, etc., et al., 129 F.R.D. 435 (E.D.N.Y. 1990). See also: King v. Conde and Gentile and

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 29 of 82

Page 30: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

5

Rydstrom v. County of Suffolk, 121 F. R.D. 180 (E.D.N.Y. 1988).

Along with co-counsel, he successfully represented Patrick Antoine the other, less known,

victim of the police misconduct which resulted in international focus upon Abner Louima and

brutality in the New York City Police Department. See: Antoine v. The City of New York, etc., et

al., 98 Civ 5082 (E.D.N.Y.). See also: Miller v. City of New York, 92 Civ 4879 (E.D.N.Y.)(jury

verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in a police shooting case in which the jury rejected the accounting of

the several testifying police officers). See also: Spencer v. Casavilla, 717 F. Supp. 1057 (S.D.N.Y.

1989), Vacated 903 F. 2d 171 (2nd Cir. 1990), On Remand 839 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D.N.Y. 1993),

Affirmed in part and vacated in part 44 F. 3rd 74 (2nd Cir. 1994) (death case/private actor and

conspiratorial racial violence); Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F. 2d 522 (2nd Cir.

1993)(law enforcement misconduct involving the failure of law enforcement to protect a young

Vietnamese man who had cooperated with law enforcement against Vietnamese “Born to Kill” gang

members and was killed by the gang).

Mr. Meyerson has represented plaintiffs in hundreds of litigations including many that have

resulted in numerous written and/or reported decisions.

Among such reported cases in which Mr. Meyerson has been actively engaged and in which

he was the primary trial and appellate litigation attorney, both during his career at the NAACP and

since leaving his position with the NAACP, are: Sarnicola v. The County of Westchester, 229 F.

Supp. 2d 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)(strip search); Greenfield v. City of New York, 2000 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 1164 (S.N.D.Y. 2000)(denying summary judgment in a police misconduct case.); Jerome v.

Napolitano, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 805 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) [up-holding Defendant verdict in police

misconduct litigation); Cook v. Sheldon, 41 F. 3rd 73 (2nd Cir. 1994) (police misconduct); Johnson

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 30 of 82

Page 31: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

6

v. Doherty, 713 F. Supp. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) and Posr v. Doherty, 751 F. Supp. 1082 (S.D.N.Y.

1990). See also: Posr v. Doherty, Affirmed in part and reversed in part 944 F. 2d 91 (2nd Cir. 1991)

(police misconduct); Posr v. City of New York, 835 F. Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Affirmed 22 F.

3rd 1091 (2nd Cir. 1994)( failure to discipline police officer misconduct after federal judgment

against the officer); Maldonado v. Pharo, 940 F. Supp. 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (federal law enforcement

misconduct); Morales v. United States, 961 F. Supp. 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (federal law enforcement

misconduct); Lopez v. City of New York, 901 F. Supp. 684 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (police misconduct);

Smith v. State of New York (unjust conviction)(New York State Court of Claims which resulted in a

trial verdict in favor of the Claimant in one of few cases to be tried under the New York State unjust

conviction statute); Guce v. City of New York (E.D.N.Y.)(malicious prosecution)(case settled for a

significant sum to redress the consequences of prosecution and incarceration. See: Guce v. State of

New York, 224 A.D. 2d 492, 637 N.Y.S. 2d 483(2nd Dept. 1996), Appeal denied 88 N.Y. 2d 805,

646 N.Y.S. 2d 985, 670 N.E. 2d 226 (1996) (unjust conviction)); Richburg v. The City of New York

(S.D.N.Y. 90's)(death case/police misconduct); Herring, etc. v. The City of New York, 81 Misc. 2d

1060, 367 N.Y.S. 2d 698 (Onondaga County Court 1975)/372 N.Y.S. 2d 588 (4th Dept. 1975)(death

case/police misconduct); Glickman v. United States, 626 F. Supp. 171 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)(surreptitious

drugging by agents of the United States); Smith v. City of New York, 611 F. Supp. 1080 (S.D.N.Y.)

(discovery of police officer's pre employment psychological test results); Rogers v. Britton, 476 F.

Supp. 1036 (E.D. Arkansas 1979), Reversed 631 F. 2d 572 (8th Cir. 1980)(criminal justice);

Richards v. Board of Education, 668 F. Supp. 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), Affirmed 842 F. 2d 1288 (2nd

Cir. 1988)(employment); Polk v. Kramarsky, 711 F. 2d 505 (2nd Cir. 1983)(employment); Griffin v.

Buck, 551 F. Supp. 1385 (S.D.N.Y. 1982/566 F. Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)(employment); Huntley

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 31 of 82

Page 32: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

7

v. Community School Board # 14, 543 F. 2d 979 (2nd Cir. 1976) and 579 F. 2d 738

(1978)(employment/due process); Valentin v. New York City Transit Authority, etc., et al., 94 Civ

3911 (E.D.N.Y.)(gender based hostile work employment/expert witness testimony); Weise and

Mortenson v. Syracuse University, 522 F. 2d 397 (1975)(employment); Hernandez-Cruz v.

Fordham University, 521 F. Supp. 1059 (1981)(employment); Gordon v. Katz, 934 F. Supp. 79

(S.D.N.Y. 1996), Affirmed 101 F.3rd 1393 (2nd Cir. 1996)(employment); Murphy v. Middletown

School District, 525 F. Supp. 678 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (employment); Buckley v. Coyle Oklahoma

School District, 476 F. 2d 92 (10th Cir. 1973)(employment); Snead v. Department of Social Services

of the City of New York, 351 F. Supp. 1360 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)/355 F. Supp. 764 (S.D.N.Y. 1973),

Vacated 416 U.S. 977, 94 S. Ct. 2376, 40 L.Ed. 2d 755 (1974)/389 F. Supp. 935 (S.D.N.Y. 1974),

Vacated 421 U.S. 982, 95 S. Ct. 1985, 44 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1975)/409 F. Supp. 994 (S.D.N.Y. 1975),

Vacated 425 U.S. 457, 96 S. Ct. 1630, 48 L. Ed. 2d 88 (1976) (due process); Laurido v. Simon, 489

F. Supp. 1169 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (due process); Powell v. Syracuse University, 580 F. 2d 1150 (2nd

Cir. 1978)(employment); Jackson v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 419 F. Supp.

809 (1976)(heath care services); In the Matter of Rene Thornton a/k/a "Asha", 560 F. Supp. 183

(S.D.N.Y. 1983)(contempt/grand jury); Fruchtman v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 534

F. Supp. 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)(constitutional challenge to bar examination results and process

associated therewith); Graham v. State of New York, 653 F. Supp. 1363 (S.D.N.Y. 1987),

Remanded for further consideration 861 F. 2d 381 (2nd Cir. 1988), On remand 716 F. Supp. 802

(S.D.N.Y.1989), Affirmed 907 F. 2d 324 (2nd Cir. 1990) (re: issues of retroactivity under Title VII

arising out of employee benefits claim); Mack v. Rumsfeld, 609 F. Supp. 1561 (W.D.N.Y. 1985),

Affirmed 784 F. 2d 438 (2nd Cir. 1986) (constitutional challenge to policy excluding single parents

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 32 of 82

Page 33: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

8

with children under age of eighteen from enlisting in Army and Air Force and Army and Air Force

Reserves).

For other cases, see also: Francis and Brown v. Keane, 888 F. Supp. 568 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

(First amendment challenge to the disciplining of correctional officers because they wore hair in

modified dredlocks in deference to their Rastafarian religious beliefs); Julius Williams v. The City of

New York, et al., 03 Civ 4468 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(race discrimination in employment); Velez v. Levy,

et al., 274 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded 401

F. 3rd 75 (2nd Cir. March 11, 2005)(constitutional challenge to the removal of Community School

Board member on Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process and First

Amendment grounds); Savino v. County of Suffolk, 774 F. Supp. 756 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (challenging

the racial composition of a jury panel in the Suffolk County, Long Island Division of the Eastern

District of New York); Elliot v. City of New York, etc., et al., 00 Civ 9308 (S.D.N.Y.

2005)(employment/hostile racial work environment-jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff; second seated

Colleen Meenan, Esq.); Arthur v. Starrett City, 98 F.R.D. 500 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) (housing)/89 F.R.D.

547 (E.D.N.Y. 1981); Marr v. Rife, 545 F. 2d 554 (6th Cir. 1976)(housing); Fair Housing

Development Fund Corp. v. Burke, 55 F.R.D. 414 (E.D.N.Y.)(housing); Duckett v. Silberman, 568

F. 2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1978)(housing); Stevens v. Artuz, 97 Civ 5821 (S.D.N.Y.)(prisoner rights);

Rene Rogers v. United Airlines, 527 F. Supp. 229 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)(terms and conditions of

employment and discrimination, based on race, associated therewith); Robert Pinter v. The City of

New York, etc., et al.,710 F. Supp. 2nd 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), Reversed in and remanded for further

proceedings(2nd Cir. November 18, 2011);Bradley v. The City of New York, 2007 WL 232945

(S.D.N.Y. January 26, 2007); Bradley v. Jusino, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11558 (S.D.N.Y. February

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 33 of 82

Page 34: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

9

14, 2008); Bradley v. Jusino, 2008 WL 3891529 (S.D.N.Y. August 19, 2008); Bradley v. Jusino,

2009 WL 1181617 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2009); Bradley v. Jusino, 2009 WL 1403891 (S.D.N.Y. May

18,2009);Bradley v. Jusino, 374 Fed. Appx. 144, 2010 WL 1462072 (2nd cir. April 14, 2010)(police

misconduct). The Bradley litigation eventually resulted in a successful jury rendered damage

verdict and, associated therewith, the eventual resolution of the litigation.

In the early 90’s, Mr. Meyerson was elected to, and served on, a New York City Community

School Board for a term of three years. He also served for a term on the Board of Directors of the

National Employment Law Project, a federally funded Legal Services back up center. Mr. Meyerson

has appeared on panels over his career to discuss various substantive issues growing out of his multi

faceted civil rights litigation experiences.

Mr. Meyerson lives in New York City with his wife of thirty four years who has always been

and remains the rock in his life. He is the enormously proud father of a twenty six year old daughter

who since her birth has always been and continues to be the inspiration in his life and the source of

his greatest joy and happiness and pride.

Mr. Meyerson believes, as his father wrote to him, that the "moral force of a just cause is

irresistible" and that the moral force and the just cause, not he, should be the focus of his labors in

the civil rights and human rights struggle.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 34 of 82

Page 35: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit B

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 35 of 82

Page 36: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------------ x CHRISTOPHER LONG,

Plaintiff,

-against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK; a municipal entity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER PATRICK POGAN (Shield No. 28957), individually and in his official capacity; and NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE No. 1 and NEW YORK CITY POLICE SUPERVISORS RICHARD ROES Nos. 1 & 2, individually and in their official capacities,

Defendants.

: : :::::::: : : : : : :

ORDER RESOLVING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 09 Civ. 6099 (AKH)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ x ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:

Plaintiff Christopher Long brings this motion to recover attorneys’ fees and costs

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the terms of the Judgment entered in this case on October 19,

2009.

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive

force and unlawful arrest in violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments. Plaintiff alleged that when he was participating in a “Critical Mass” bicycle ride,

NYPD Officer Patrick Pogan pushed him off his bicycle without provocation, tackled him when

he got to his feet, dragged him to the sidewalk, kneeled on his head and arrested him. He was

taken to the precinct where the officers allegedly gave a false account of the events to cover up

what had occurred. Plaintiff was held at the precinct until he was arraigned on charges of

Attempted Assault, Resisting Arrest, and Disorderly Conduct, and was released on his own

recognizance. Shortly after his release, a video of Pogan pushing plaintiff off the bicycle became

Case 1:09-cv-06099-AKH Document 39 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 4Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 36 of 82

Page 37: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

2

public. As a result, the New York County District Attorney dismissed all charges against

plaintiff. Pogan was subsequently indicted on felony charges of falsifying a business record and

filing a false instrument in connection with plaintiff’s arrest. He was convicted on April 29,

2010 in New York County Supreme Court of offering a false instrument for filing.

The City of New York made an offer of judgment to plaintiff on September 23,

2009, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the sum of $65,001.00 plus

“reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs to the date of this offer for plaintiff’s federal

claims, if any, against defendant City of New York or any official , employee, or agent, either

past or present, of the City of New York, or any agency thereof, other than former Police Officer

Patrick Pogan.” The judgment was in full satisfaction of plaintiff’s federal and state claims

against the City of New York and its officials, employees or agents other than Officer Pogan.

Plaintiff accepted the offer on October 7, 2009.

The parties have since been unable to resolve the amount of attorneys’ fees,

expenses and costs to which plaintiff is entitled. The rulings set out below address certain

disputed categories. The parties shall renew their attempt to settle the dispute in light of the

rulings below. If they are unable, I will hold a conference.

(1) The terms of the Rule 68 offer of judgment limit recoverable fees, costs and

expenses to those incurred in pursuit of plaintiff’s federal claims. Plaintiff accepted the

offer and is bound by its terms. See Tucker v. City of New York, 08 Civ. 4753 (VM),

2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 30064, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010) (“[T]he Offer of

Judgment explicitly . . . encompassed attorneys’ fees and costs related only to ‘plaintiff's

federal claims,’ and th[e] issue [of whether plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to fees and

Case 1:09-cv-06099-AKH Document 39 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 4Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 37 of 82

Page 38: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

3

expenses incurred in pursuit of state claims] thus should be governed by and decided as a

matter of ordinary contract law principles.”). As such, plaintiff’s counsel is not entitled

to compensation for (a) time associated with pleading and pursuing state law claims, (b)

time spent drafting and reviewing plaintiff’s notice of claim, (c) time associated with

plaintiff’s 50-h hearing, including client preparation and attendance, and (d) review of

plaintiff’s 50-h transcript. None of this work was necessary to pursue plaintiff’s federal

claims.

(2) Plaintiff’s federal claims against the City and associated parties were based on the

conduct of Officer Pogan. Plaintiff’s counsel is thus entitled to compensation for the

time spent in pursuit of the claims against him.

(3) The rates requested by plaintiff’s four attorneys are reasonable. Any hours

charged that are unreasonably duplicative must be excised.

(4) Plaintiff’s preparation of initial disclosures and discovery and interrogatory

requests was reasonable if only to assess the strength of the case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

counsel is entitled to compensation for this work.

(5) The services that Defendant characterizes as “clerical and administrative,” see

Deft’s Opp. Memo at 18-19 & n.20, were reasonable and proper substantive legal

services. Plaintiff’s counsel is thus entitled to compensation for the hours spent

performing them.

Case 1:09-cv-06099-AKH Document 39 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 4Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 38 of 82

Page 39: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1:09-cv-06099-AKH Document 39 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 4

(6) An across~the-board percentage reduction of plaintiff's counsel's time is not

warranted. Defendant has not established that the services plaintiffs counsel performed

were not reasonably necessary to the outcome of the case. See Tucker v. City of New

York, 08 Civ. 4753 (VM) (MHD), 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 30270, at *12-13 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 9, 2010), adopted by Tucker v. City ofNew York, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 30064.

(7) Finally, plaintiff's counsel is not entitled to fees and expenses for work done

preparing and filing this motion. The Rule 68 judgment limited recoverable fees and

expenses to those incurred prior to the date of the offer. If the City's dispute over

recoverable fees were in bad faith, than compensation for the work necessary for

plaintiff's fee application may be justified. No such showing has here been made.

In light of these rulings, the parties are to meet and attempt to settle their fee

dispute. They shall report to the court within thirty days, indicating the status of negotiations. If

the parties are unable to reach agreement, I will hold a conference. The Clerk shall mark the

motion (Doc. No. 19) as terminated.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Augus·t, 2010 New ~k, New York

4

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 39 of 82

Page 40: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit C

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 40 of 82

Page 41: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------)( DEJA BARBOUR, SHINNEL GONZALEZ, and RAKA YY AH MASSEY,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, et al.,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------)(

ROBERT P. PATTERSON, JR., U.S.D.J.

07 Civ. 30 14 (RPP)

OPINION AND ORDER

On March 14, 2011, Plaintiffs' attorneys Michael L. Spiegel and Scott A. Korenbaum

moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $280,940.44 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1988. On March 28, 2011, Defendants filed an affidavit and memorandum of law in opposition

to the request for fees, arguing first that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any fees, and, in the

alternative, that Plaintiffs' request is excessive. On April 7, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief, in

which Mr. Spiegel lowered his portion of the request for fees by seven hours in response to

Defendants' objections. The reply brief also amended the amount of Plaintiffs' request by

incorporating additional fees for work performed on the reply by Mr. Spiegel and Mr.

Korenbaum. Plaintiffs' final request for fees and costs totals $290,997.94.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Deja Barbour, Shinnel Gonzalez and Rakayyah Massey commenced this action

by filing the Complaint on April 16, 2007, following the favorable termination of criminal

proceedings against them in 2006. (Declaration of Michael L. Spiegel ("Spiegel Decl.") ~ 19.)

Plaintiffs' Complaint arises out of their arrest during an incident in the early morning of April

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 41 of 82

Page 42: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

- ' Case 1 :07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 2 of 16

25, 2004. (.Ml:. -u 20.) That morning, the three women had walked out of a White Plains diner

when they observed several police officers questioning and ultimately arresting two of their male

friends. ~) Plaintiffs protested the rough treatment their male friends were receiving at the

hands of the officers, and they were placed under arrest by the officers, who were Defendants in

this case. (ld.) The criminal case against Plaintiffs proceeded for two years; Plaintiff Massey's

case was dismissed mid-trial and the other two Plaintiffs were acquitted. (1QJ

Following the resolution of their criminal case, Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for false

arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution and failure to intervene under 42 U.S.C. § I983

and for malicious prosecution under New York state law. (Compl. at 4-8.) They also brought§

I983 claims against the City of White Plains under theories of supervisory liability and

municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). An initial

pre-trial conference was held before Judge Robinson on September 14, 2007. The case was then

transferred to Judge Karas, before whom a pre-trial conference was held on May 20, 2008.

Judge Karas set a discovery deadline of July I, 2008. The parties appeared for a settlement

conference before Magistrate Judge Davison on March 4, 20IO. On January 7, 201I, this case

was transferred to this Judge, before whom a conference was held on January 21, 2011. A trial

date was set for March 14, 20 11.

On March I, 20 II, Defendants made three Rule 68 Offers of Judgment, each for the

"total sum ofTEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/I 00 ($I 0,000) for the settlement of all

claims pending against the defendants in this action." (Spiegel Decl., Ex. A.) On March 2,

20 II, notices of acceptance of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment were filed with the Court, and on

March 8, 20 I1, Judgment Pursuant to Rule 68 was entered in favor of each Plaintiff for the sum

of$IO,OOO, "with the costs accrued, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in an amount to be

2

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 42 of 82

Page 43: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 3 of 16

determined by the Court." On March 14, 20 11, Plaintiffs' counsel filed their application for

attorneys' fees.

DISCUSSION

Rule 68 provides that "[m]ore than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending

against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms,

with the costs then accrued." Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 provides, in relevant part,

that in an§ 1983 action, a court may award the prevailing party "a reasonable attorney's fee as a

part of the costs." Plaintiffs contend that they are prevailing parties in this § 1983 suit by virtue

of their acceptance of Defendants' Rule 68 offer, and that they are entitled to costs of the

litigation, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs contend that these costs are to be paid by

Defendants in addition to the $10,000 per Plaintiff settlement. Defendants argue that by

incorporating the language "for the settlement of all claims" in the Rule 68 Offers of Judgment,

they intended for the $10,000 sum to include attorneys' fees, and that therefore Plaintiffs are not

entitled to any additional fees. Alternatively, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not prevailing

parties entitled to fees pursuant to § 1988, and that Plaintiffs' request for fees is excessive.

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' application is granted.

I. Attorneys' Fees in Rule 68 Offers of Judgment

Defendants argue that the language "settle all claims" in the Rule 68 Offers of Judgment

"show[s] that legal fees were contemplated in the Rule 68 Offer made to Plaintiffs." (Affidavit

of Joseph A. Maria ("Maria Aff.") at 3.) Therefore, Defendants contend, an award of legal fees

in addition to the $10,000 payment is inappropriate. Plaintiffs argue that because the Rule 68

Offer did not state specifically that costs were included in the $10,000 figure, and did not specify

3

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 43 of 82

Page 44: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 4 of 16

an amount for costs, an additional award of costs, including attorneys' fees, is warranted. (Pis.'

Mem. in Supp. at 4.)

It is settled law that if a Rule 68 offer of judgment is intended to include costs in the

offered sum, it should expressly state that intent. Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 6 (1985) ("[i]f

the [Rule 68] offer does not state that costs are included and an amount for costs is not specified,

the court will be obligated by the terms of the Rule to include in its judgment an additional

amount which in its discretion, it determines to be sufficient to cover the costs"). If Defendants

had intended its offers to include costs and attorneys fees, its offers of judgment should have so

stated. Sas v. Trintex, 709 F. Supp. 455, 457-58 (S.D.N.Y. I989) ("[i]fthe offer of judgment ...

simply had stated that it was to include costs, its acceptance would have prohibited an additional

claim for attorney's fees").

While Defendants now object that they intended for the $I 0,000 offer to be inclusive of

costs, this case is on all fours with Sas, in which Judge Goettel stated "[t]he ... fact of the

matter is that the defendant's counsel never anticipated that the plaintiff would accept the offer of

judgment and, indeed, that offer would not have been accepted had it included attorney's fees.

Defendant's counsel simply erred in failing to protect against an acceptance of the offer followed

by a request for costs, including attorney's fees." Sas, 709 F. Supp. at 458. Defendants drafted

the Rule 68 offer. If they intended for it to be inclusive of attorneys' fees, the offer should have

clearly expressed that intent.'

In addition to their argument regarding the offer's language, defense counsel's affidavit

alleges that the March 8, 20 II Judgment signed by the Court could be fairly read to mean "that

1 In this Court's view, the offer does not suggest that attorneys' fees are included in the $10,000 sum. Were the offer ambiguous, however, it would nevertheless be interpreted against the drafter as not including attorneys' fees. Photopaint Technologies. LLC v. Smartlens Corp., 335 F.3d 152, 161 (2d Cir. 2003) (reaffirming the rule that ambiguous contracts are interpreted against the document's drafter).

4

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 44 of 82

Page 45: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1:07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 5 of 16

the Court properly has decided that some amount ofthe $10,000.00 to each person is awardable

to the Plaintiff as legal fees." (Maria Aff. at 2.) Defendants' counsel's reading of the Judgment

is incorrect. The law is clear, as set forth above, that because the offers did not specify that they

were to include fees, the Court is required to allow a separate award of fees.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of fees because "the

Judgment which the Court issued was not a Consent Order ... the parties' settlement by way of a

Rule 68 Settlement offer and the Court's judgment did not constitute sufficient bases upon which

an award of counsel fees should have been made." (Defs.' Mem. in Opp. at 4.)

Contrary to Defendants' arguments, Rule 68 provides that the offeror is to pay the costs

of the accepting party: "At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a

claim may serve on an opposing party and offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the

costs then accrued." Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. "The critical feature of this portion of the Rule is that

the offer be one that allows judgment to be taken against the defendant for both the damages

caused by the challenged conduct and the costs then accrued." Marek, 473 U.S. at 6 (emphasis

original). In the context of§ 1983 actions, such as this case, the Supreme Court has held that

"costs," as referred to in Rule 68, include attorneys' fees. Marek, 473 U.S. at 8-12.

Defendant is incorrect that Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys' fees because they

accepted a Rule 68 offer instead of obtaining a consent order. Rule 68 itself and the Supreme

Court's decision in Marek make clear that parties accepting Rule 68 offers are entitled to recover

costs, including attorneys' fees.

II. Plaintiffs as Prevailing Parties

Defendants also contend that because several of Plaintiffs' original claims were

voluntarily discontinued, Plaintiffs cannot be prevailing parties and thus are not entitled to fees

5

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 45 of 82

Page 46: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 6 of 16

under§ 1988. (Maria Aff. at 4-5.) Defendants also argue that it is impossible to distinguish

Plaintiffs' claims for fees for work performed on those claims that survived versus those claims

that were terminated prior to settlement, and that therefore no legal fees should be awarded.

(Maria Aff. at 5.)

Defendants are correct that prior to the Rule 68 offer, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed

their excessive force claims, and dismissed their Monell claims and supervisory liability claims

against White Plains. See Pretrial Memorandum, Barbour et al. v. City of White Plains et al., 07

Civ. 3014, ECF No. 22 (Nov. 2, 201 0). Plaintiffs' malicious prosecution, false arrest, and failure

to intervene claims brought pursuant to § 1983 as well as New York state law, remained. ld.

Defendants' arguments fail. First, settlement in Plaintiffs' favor is sufficient to establish

Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties in this action. "[T]o qualify as a prevailing party, a civil rights

plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim. The plaintiff must obtain an

enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought, or comparable relief

through a consent decree or settlement." Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. I 03, Ill (1992) (citations

omitted). Obtaining a Rule 68 judgment on behalf of each Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000

constitutes "some relief."

Second, Plaintiffs dismissed their non-viable claims in the interest of efficiency. The

facts underlying these claims arose from the same incident as the remaining claims, and all of the

claims had the same nucleus of fact and law. Plaintiffs' counsel attest that they are not claiming

any fees for time spent exclusively on those claims that were dismissed. (Pis.' Reply Mem. in

Supp. at 6 n.l.) Thus, the fact that Plaintiffs dismissed several claims before accepting the Rule

68 offer does not mean that they are not prevailing parties. Plaintiffs' counsel have eliminated

costs and fees for the time spent exclusively on those claims.

6

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 46 of 82

Page 47: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 7 of 16

III. Reasonableness of the Requested Fees

Defendants object to the amount of Plaintiffs' fee request for several reasons. First, they

argue that "no comprehensive work [was] done," and that Plaintiffs' billing is inflated in several

particular instances. (Maria Aff. at 3, 4-6.) Defendants also challenge the request for fees

because it is disproportionate to the recovery.2 Defendants do not state an objection to Plaintiffs'

counsel's hourly rates or expenses, nor do they state any objections to any particular time entries

of Mr. Korenbaum, or his hourly rates.

A. Standard Governing Reasonableness of Fees

In Perdue v. Kenny A., 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1669 (20 I 0), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the

utility of the lodestar approach to evaluate the reasonableness of fee applications in the§ 1988

context. The lodestar approach entails "determining the amount of a reasonable fee [by

calculating] the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

reasonable hourly rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983). In Arbor Hill

Concerned Citizens v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F .3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit

determined that "[t]he meaning of the term 'lodestar' has shifted over time, and its value as a

metaphor has deteriorated to the point ofunhelpfulness." Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 190. Further,

the Second Circuit reasoned that "[ w ]hat the district courts in this circuit produce is in effect not

a lodestar as originally conceived but rather a 'presumptively reasonable fee."' Id. at 189. Under

either approach, Plaintiffs' counsel's fee request is reasonable.

2 On page 3ofthe Maria Affidavit, Defendants explain "the award is truly nominal when it is considered an entire civil rights matter settled for the sum of$10,000." On page 4 of the Affidavit, Defendants cite a New York Supreme Court case Continental Building Co. Inc. v. The Town of North Salem, 150 Misc. 2d 145 for the proposition that "there must be some relationship to the results obtained and to the legal fees awarded." These arguments are construed as challenges to the request for fees on the basis of proportionality to the award.

7

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 47 of 82

Page 48: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 8 of 16

B. Time Reasonably Expended

Defendants object to Plaintiffs' application for fees primarily on the grounds that

Plaintiffs bill for an excessive amount of time. Defendants claim that "there was no

comprehensive work done," and that "20 hours alone are dedicated to the instant application for

fees." (Defs.' Mem. in Opp. at 3.) Defendants also make several specific objections to

Plaintiffs' bill, arguing that the time expended for various tasks was excessive. (Maria Aff. at 5-

6.) Plaintiffs respond by justifying their expenditures and pointing out that Defendants' delay in

making a reasonable settlement offer unnecessarily extended the litigation up to thirteen days

prior to a firm trial date.

"In determining whether hours should be excluded, the inquiry is not based on what

effort appears necessary in hindsight, but rather on whether 'at the time the work was performed,

a reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time expenditures."' Harrell v. VanDer

Plas, No. 08 Civ. 8252, 2009 WL 3756327 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009) (quoting Grant v.

Martinez, 973 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 1992)). As set forth in the pretrial memorandum, at the time

of the Rule 68 offers, Plaintiffs' counsel were preparing to proceed to trial on behalf of three

clients, on claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution and failure to intervene, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, against six police officers who had testified against them at trial.

Pretrial Memorandum, Barbour et al. v. City of White Plains et al., 07 Civ. 3014, ECF No. 22

(Nov. 2, 201 0).

Defendants' first argument, that there was ·no comprehensive work done, is unsupported

by any citations to the record, and is directly contradicted by Mr. Spiegel's and Mr.

Korenbaum's billing records, which demonstrate comprehensive and conscientious preparation

for trial.

8

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 48 of 82

Page 49: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 9 of 16

Defendants next object to Plaintiffs' counsel's application for fees for the time spent

preparing their motion for fees. (Maria Aff. at 3.) This objection is contradicted by the law,

which dictates that a prevailing civil rights plaintiff may include the costs of drafting a motion to

recover fees as part of a fee award. Weyant v. Okst, 198 F .3d 311, 316 (2d Cir. 1999) ("motion

costs should be granted whenever underlying costs are allowed."); Davis v. City of New

Rochelle, 156 F.R.D. 549,560 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (attorneys should be compensated for"time

reasonably spent ... in establishing their fee pursuant to fee-shifting statutes such as § 1988").

Defendants also voice several specific objections to certain time entries. Their first

objection questions an entry for "January 26, 2006- a call and correspondence to Joseph A.

Maria's office adjourning a 50-h Hearing which took approximately 24 minutes. Clearly this is

an inflated item." (Maria Aff. at 5.) Defendants' affidavit is inaccurate, because there is no

entry in Mr. Spiegel's or Mr. Korenbaum's billing records for that date. (Spiegel Decl., Ex. 8;

Declaration of Scott A. Korenbaum ("Korenbaum Decl.") Ex. B.) The only entry that aligns

with that description appears on page 2 of Mr. Spiegel's records and corresponds to a call on

October 27, 2006. (!9.:. at 2.) This entry reads "Call and write Joseph, Maria, Esq., re:

adjournment of 50-h hearings." (!9.:.) In the event this is the entry that Defendants challenge, it

is reasonable that a call and preparation of a letter regarding adjournment of these hearings could

take four tenths of an hour (twenty-four minutes). Moreover, in response to Defendants'

objections, Plaintiffs have agreed to adjust all of Mr. Spiegel's hours expended with regard to the

50-h hearings by deducting seven hours. (Spiegel Reply Decl. ~ 6.) Such an adjustment is

adequate to satisfy Defendants' objections to Mr. Spiegel's billing relating to the 50-h

proceedings.

9

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 49 of 82

Page 50: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 10 of 16

Second, Defendants object to conversations Plaintiffs' counsel Mr. Spiegel had with his

clients in January 2010 and on March 4, 201 0 with regard to pre-trial and settlement conferences.

(Maria Aff. at 5-6.) Defendants contend that it was improper for Plaintiff to devote eight hours

to discussing settlement with his clients and attending a settlement conference when a settlement

offer had not yet been made. Defendants' characterization of these entries appears, again, to be

inaccurate. The first call to which Defendants object is a call between Mr. Spiegel and his

clients on January 25, 2010 in preparation for a court conference on February 9, 2010. iliL, at 5.)

The call that took a total of one hour and twelve minutes. (Spiegel Decl., Ex. B at 9.) In view of

the fact that Plaintiffs' counsel represented three clients, these calls averaged 24 minutes per

client, which, considering that the calls were in. preparation for the first court conference in over

six months, is not excessive. See Docket Sheet, 07 Civ. 3014, ECF Nos. I 1, 13. Moreover, Mr.

Spiegel affirms in his Reply Declaration that Defendants' counsel failed to appear for the

February 9 court conference, or to send a colleague in his stead, rendering the conference

useless. (Spiegel Reply Dec I.~ 4.) If Defendants' counsel wished to avoid unnecessary

attorneys' fees, minimizing the amount of his opponent's time wasted due to his failure to appear

for court conferences would have been an effective strategy.

Defendants next dispute an entry on February 17, 2010, arguing that the fact that

Plaintiffs' counsel spent additional time on calls to his client on that date, so soon after the calls

on January 25, indicates that his bill is inflated. (Maria Aff. at 6.) Mr. Spiegel's entry indicates

that for one hour and 48 minutes on February 17 he conducted calls with his clients in advance of

a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Davison scheduled for March 4. (Spiegel Decl.,

Ex. B. at 9.) During that period Mr. Spiegel also prepared for the conference himself, including

reviewing documents and drafting an ex parte letter. (I d.) Mr. Spiegel also billed five hours for

10

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 50 of 82

Page 51: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

. . Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 11 of 16

attending the settlement conference. (ld.) Defendants argue that "if you take in excess of 8

hours to discuss a settlement where no offers were forthcoming, this is clearly improper."3

(Maria Aff. at 6.) The Court disagrees. A settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge

requires each party's counsel to determine the strengths and weaknesses of their case and their

clients' willingness to settle and for what figure, in view of those strengths and weaknesses.

Furthermore, the bulk of the eight hour period (five hours) that Defendants challenge was spent

in conference with the Court. Plaintiffs' counsel's attendance at a settlement conference

scheduled by the court certainly does not represent excessive billing.

Defendants also object that Plaintiffs' counsel spent an inappropriate amount of time

preparing for trial in November and December of2010 and January of2011, and that Plaintiffs'

counsel overbilled for its preparation to cross examine Defendants Heffner and Christopher.

(Maria Aff. at 6.) Both of these arguments are unavailing. Plaintiffs' counsel's records are

detailed and specific and make clear that he was engaged in the types of tasks that are necessary

to trial preparation, including reviewing his client's deposition testimony, developing requests to

charge, drafting in limine motions, and preparing direct and cross examinations of witnesses, in

large part based on trial transcripts of Defendants' prior testimony on the same subject matter.

{Spiegel Decl., Ex. Bat 11-13.) There is no reason to believe that any of these efforts were

unnecessary.

Furthermore, Defendants maintained the position that they were unwilling to settle

throughout the litigation, until the time the Rule 68 offers were made right before trial. (Spiegel

Decl. ~ ~ 24-25.) This approach ultimately increases the costs of litigation. Defendants "could

3 To arrive at the eight hour figure, defense counsel apparently added the entries representing the calls on January 25, 20 I 0, the calls and other preparation on February 17, 2010, and attending the settlement conference on March 4, 2010.

II

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 51 of 82

Page 52: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 12 of 16

have avoided liability for the bulk of the attorney's fees for which they now find themselves

liable by making a reasonable settlement offer in a timely manner." City of Riverside, 477 U.S.

561,580 n.ll (1986). Plaintiffs' counsel could not have foreseen that Defendants would make a

settlement offer at the eleventh hour, and thus were ethically bound to prepare adequately for

trial. "In determining whether hours should be excluded, the inquiry is not based on what effort

appears necessary in hindsight, but rather on whether 'at the time the work was performed, a

reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time expenditures." Harrell, 2009 WL

3756327 at *6.

Upon review of Defendants' billing records, and in view of the prior trial dates set, the

amount of time expended to prepare this case was reasonable.

C. Hourly Rates

Defendants do not articulate an objection to Plaintiffs counsel's hourly rates in their

opposition papers. Nevertheless, the Court will briefly review Plaintiffs' counsel's requested

rates and the documents offered in support of these rates in order to evaluate their

reasonableness.

Plaintiffs' attorney Michael Spiegel seeks a rate of$625 an hour, which he states is the

rate he charges in civil rights contingency fee agreements. (Spiegel Decl. ~ 30.) This rate is

somewhat higher than the rates granted in judicial decisions cited by Mr. Spiegel. See Vilkhu v.

The City ofNew York, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73696 at *13 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009)

(describing the range of rates paid to experienced civil rights attorneys as "$250 to $600 ... with

average awards increasing over time."); Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 576 F. Supp.2d 527, 546

(S.D.N.Y. 2008) (awarding an experienced civil rights litigator fees at $600 per hour).

12

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 52 of 82

Page 53: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1:07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 13 of 16

In support of this rate, Mr. Spiegel cites his extensive experience as a civil rights litigator

in this district, including litigating approximately 150 civil rights cases. (Spiegel Dec I.~ 7 .) Mr.

Spiegel also submits three declarations from other experienced civil rights litigators who each

attest that their hourly rate matches or exceeds that of Mr. Spiegel's, and contend that Mr.

Spiegel's requested rate is within a standard range for fees paid to lawyers of Mr. Spiegel's

experience and ability. (llh ~ 33; Exs. D, E & F.) Mr. Spiegel also attaches several statistical

reports indicating that $625 is well within the range of hourly rates for attorneys in civil rights

cases in the Southern District and Washington, D.C. area. (Spiegel Decl. ~~ 34, 35; Exs. G and

H.)

In view of Mr. Spiegel's extensive experience and the evidence presented that his

claimed rate is within a standard range charged by other attorneys in this District with similar

levels of experience and skill, and in view of the absence of any defense objection to Mr.

Spiegel's rate, Mr. Spiegel's rate of $625 is reasonable.

Mr. Spiegel's colleague, Scott Korenbaum, seeks $450 per hour. In support of his

application, Mr. Korenbaum explains that he has twenty-two years of legal experience, and

maintained his own practice focused on civil rights litigation since 2000. (Korenbaum Decl. ~~

8, 14.) He attests that $450 is the usual rate that he charges in his civil rights retainer

agreements. (ld. ~ 15.) Mr. Korenbaum also cites to cases in this district and the Eastern District

in which he was awarded similar rates. ilih ~~ 16, 17, and 18.) Mr. Korenbaum presents a

declaration from Matthew Brinkerhoff, an attorney specializing in civil rights litigation, who

states that Mr. Korenbaum' s rate of $450 is lower than his own rate and well in line with the rate

paid to attorneys of similar skill and experience. (Korenbaum Dec I., Ex. A.)

13

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 53 of 82

Page 54: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1 :07 -cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 14 of 16

After review of Mr. Spiegel's and Mr. Korenbaum's declarations and their appended

exhibits, the requested rates are found to be reasonable and within the range of fees paid to civil

rights attorneys of similar skill and experience in the Southern District of New York.

D. Proportionality of the Fees to the Recovery

Defendants' counsel appears to argue that the fees requested by Plaintiffs' attorneys are

excessive in view of the $10,000 recovery paid to each Plaintiff. Without citing any law,

Defendants assert that "the legal fees awarded pursuant to Federal Law must bear some basis to

the actual successfulness of the Plaintiffs in the case at bar." (Maria Aff. at 5.)

"Congress enacted fee-shifting statutes ... to encourage private enforcement of civil rights

statutes, to the benefit of the public as a whole," Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F .3d 422, 426

(2d Cir. 1999). Fees in civil rights statutes are not to be linked to the dollar value of a claim. I d.;

Vasguez v. Ranieri Cheese Corp., No. 07 Civ. 464, 2011 WL 554695 at *4 (E.D.N.Y. February

7, 2011) ("courts have rejected the notion that fee awards should be proportionately tied to a

plaintiffs recovery").

Plaintiffs' acceptance ofthe Rule 68 offer of$10,000 to each Plaintiff represents "some

success" on the merits of their claims. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover attorneys' fees,

despite the fact that the fees requested are substantially larger than the ultimate recovery. Farrar

v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, Ill (1992).

E. Paralegal Fees and Costs

Plaintiffs also seek recovery of paralegal fees in the amount of $8,712.50 and reasonable

expenses in the amount of $4,932.94. Defendants do not make an objection to such an award

and thus paralegal fees and costs and expenses are granted.

14

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 54 of 82

Page 55: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1:07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 15 of 16

CONCLUSION

The time expended by Plaintiffs' counsel in preparing this case on behalf of the three

Plaintiffs was reasonable, and their requested rates are found to be within the range of rates paid

to civil rights lawyers in the Southern District of New York of similar skill and experience.

Plaintiffs are entitled attorneys' fees in addition to the amount of the Rule 68 offer because the

offer did not specify that it was to include atton1eys' fees.

Plaintiffs are awarded a total of$290,997.94 for costs including attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs' attorney Mr. Spiegel is awarded $212,687.50 and Plaintiffs' attorney Mr. Korenbawn

is awarded $64,665. Plaintiffs are also awarded paralegal fees in the amount of$8,712.50 and

costs and expenses of $4,932.94.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: New York, New York

May 2~011

Copies of this order were sent to:

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Michael L. Spiegel, Esq. 111 Broadway, Suite 1305 New York, NY 10006 (212) 587 8558 Fax: (212) 571 7767

Robert P. Patterson, Jr.

U.S.D.J.

15

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 55 of 82

Page 56: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Case 1:07-cv-03014-RPP Document 67 Filed 05/24/11 Page 16 of 16

Scott A. Korenbaum, Esq. 111 Broadway, Suite 1305 New York, NY 10006 212-587-8558 Fax: 212-346-4665

Attorney for Defendants:

Joseph Anthony Maria Joseph A. Maria, P.C. 301 Old Tarrytown Road White Plains, NY 10603 914~684-0333 Fax:914-684-9772

16

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 56 of 82

Page 57: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit D

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 57 of 82

Page 58: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

FIRST DEPARTMENT ASSIGNED COUNSEL CORPORATION

Geoffrey Q. Ralls, President Ira Mickenberg, Vice President E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Vice President

Hon. Jack B. Weinstein United States District Judge Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

17 September 1991

.Dt.;_ Application of James Meyerson, _Esq. •.

·Dear Judge Weinstein:

in the matter of Gentile et ano. y. County of Suffolk. etc •. et al. 87 Civ 2359

At the request of James Meyerson, Esq. I write in support of his application for attorney fee~ at the rate of $275 per hour. Although I have no knowledge of the nature of this action nor the efforts of Mr. Meyerson in pursuing it on behalf of his clients, I have had prior dealings with him an~ was impressed with his abilities, energy, ·and resourcefulness as an attorney.

The First Department Assigned Counsel\Corporation is a small not-for-profit corporation established in 1988 to run the Office·of the Appellate Defender, a public interest law firm specializing in criminal appeals in the New York State Appellate Division, First Department. The office accepts assignments from

···that Court and is reimbursed for its· efforts at.a flxed rate through the Assigned Counsel Plan (18-B) system. As such, the resources of the corporation are extremely limited.

In 1989 a labor dispute arose when the office terminated the employment of one of the staff attorneys. Mr~ Meyerson was recommended as a specialist in the area, and the corporation ap­proached him about advising the Board of Directors, and pgten­tially representing the corporation, if that became necessary. Mr. Meyerson, on a ~ bQnQ basis, respon~~d quickly, thougbt­fully, and thoroughly. His advice was invaluable, and indeed, assisted us in defusing a ·potentially explosive (and litigious) situation. While I am unfamiliar with the going rate for legal f~es, I believe we were counseled at a level at least equal to that which we would have received from a "white shoe" law firm.

Sincerely,

45 West 45th Street • Suite 706 • New York, NY 10036 • (212) 719-0766

.· ..

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 58 of 82

Page 59: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit E

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 59 of 82

Page 60: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK---------------------------------------------------------------x

VERNON BRANCH, :: 11 Civ 3048 (JGK) (MHD)

Plaintiff, :: DECLARATION OF

- v - : MYRON BELDOCK:

CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., ::

Defendants. :---------------------------------------------------------------x

MYRON BELDOCK, being duly admitted to practice law in and before all the Courts of

the State of New York and before this Court and being duly aware of the penalties for perjury

and for violation of the rules of this Court, affirms and declares under the penalty of perjury and

sanction, as follows:

1. I am an attorney admitted in New York State and Federal Courts who has been

continuously practicing law since graduation from Harvard Law School and admission to the

New York State Bar in 1958.

2. I make this declaration in support of the application of James I. Meyerson for fees

and costs in this matter. The purpose of this declaration is to inform the Court of what I know of

Mr. Meyerson’s qualifications and expertise; of my understanding of what lawyers of

comparable skill, experience and reputation charge for their services in the metropolitan New

York area and particularly in the Southern District of New York; and of other factors relevant to

Mr. Meyerson’s application.

3. After my admission to practice, I served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, E.D.N.Y.,

from 1958 to 1960. I was an associate in a general practice firm and then an individual

practitioner during the next four years. I have been a partner in Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 60 of 82

Page 61: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

since 1964. My firm currently has twelve partners, five associates and two paralegal assistants.

Our practice includes a wide variety oflitigation in Federal and State courts and administrative

tribunals. My practice has always been heavily concentrated in State and Federal litigation (trials

and appeals, criminal and civil). I am essentially a general practitioner with specialties in a

number of areas, including civil rights cases such as the action at bar. Over the years I have

represented plaintiffs and litigated in many civil rights and tort actions based on police and

official misconduct and on employment discrimination. Some of those cases are listed in my

website information attached as Exhibit A. The majority of those cases have involved complex

issues and lengthy commitments. For example, I am currently lead counsel in a civil rights

action brought by YusefSalaam, one of the individuals convicted and imprisoned but ultimately

exonerated in the so-called Central Park Jogger case, In re McCray, USDC, SDNY, 03 CV I 0080

(DAB)(RLE), as well as being co-counsel on behalf ofthree others of those individuals (and all

plaintiffs' family members); lead counsel in a civil rights action brought by an individual named

Cy Green, Greene v. City of New York, et al., USDC, EDNY, CV 08-243 (RJD)(CLP), whose

liberty was obtained in a State court proceeding in which I represented him and whose wrongful

conviction was set aside after he had served 22Y2 years in prison; and lead or co-counsel in four

other substantial civil rights actions against a variety of governmental entities and individuals.

4. I am advised, through discussions with Mr. Meyerson and my review of his time

and expense records, of the First Amended Supplemental Complaint and ofMr. Meyerson's fee

request Declaration, about the nature and extent of the services he rendered in this case in order

to ultimately bring about what I view to be a successful result for his client.

5. I have known Mr. Meyerson since the mid-1970s, when he volunteered to assist

2

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 61 of 82

Page 62: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

me and other attorneys during our representation of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, whose New Jersey

State Court wrongful conviction I and several other attorneys were able to set aside after many

years of diligent efforts. See, e.g, Carter v. Rafferty, 621 F. Supp. 533 (1985) (Sarokin, J.). Mr.

Meyerson and I became and remain close professional colleagues who have regularly exchanged

thoughts about legal issues and various of our cases. I know the very high quality of Mr.

Meyerson's work from the Carter case forward, including other cases ofhis that have come to my

attention. Many years ago we worked together as co-counsel in a civil rights action. Several

years ago I referred a civil rights action to Mr. Meyerson and again had a direct opportunity to

appreciate the quality of his legal work.

6. I understand that Mr. Meyerson is making an application to have his fees set at

$650 an hour in this case. I have regularly kept myself knowledgeable about fee application

issues in civil rights cases. I have read many decisions, articles and attorneys' submissions to

courts on the issues of what is an appropriate fee. My regular hourly rate is $690, which I believe

is in the mid-range, if not towards the lower end of the range, for lawyers of my experience and

competence in New York City. I believe that the rate requested by Mr. Meyerson is appropriately

comparable with rates charged and approved by courts in civil rights action for lawyers of

equivalent experience and competence. For example, my partner Jonathan Moore, who has been

practicing in the civil rights field for over thirty years, had his rate of $650 an hour upheld by

Justice Hellerstein in an August 6, 2010 Order (Long v. City of New York, USDC, SDNY 03 Civ

6099) regarding plaintiffs application for attorneys fees and costs.

7. Although my regular hourly rate is $690, I do charge various and sometimes lower

rates for various persons depending upon their circumstances and do a great deal of pro bono

3

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 62 of 82

Page 63: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

unpaid or modestly compensated work. I know that Mr. Meyerson is of a similar philosophy and

experience. But when we have an appropriate case in which we have served our clients well and

there is a fee-shifting provision that allows us to be compensated at an appropriate substantial

rate, it is critical to the economic viability and continuation of practice as civil rights lawyers that

a court not reduce our hourly rate because of our willingness to serve some needy and deserving

clients for lesser rates.

8. I know from my direct experience with and from the outstanding reputation Mr.

Meyerson has throughout the civil rights bar- and, I believe, among Federal and State judges-

that he is one of the most diligent, well-qualified and able practitioners in the field. I trust that

the Court will consider Mr. Meyerson's requested rate of compensation to be appropriate.

Dated: New York, New York March 29,2012

Myron Beldock

4

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 63 of 82

Page 64: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

[email protected] 212.277.5820 tel

212.557.0565 fax

PARTNER

Myron Baldock graduated from Erasmus Hall High School in 1946, Hamilton

College in 1950 and Harvard Law School in 1958. He served in the U.S. Army

from 1951 to 1954 and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of

New York from 1958 to 1960. After several years as an associate with a small

New York City firm and as a single practitioner, he brought together two

friends and former Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Elliot Hoffman and Larry Levine,

to form Baldock Levine & Hoffman in 1964. He is best described, by his own

definition, as an old-time general practitioner. He concentrates on trial and

appellate litigation, in state and federal courts, in defense of criminal charges

and in pursuing plaintiffs' civil rights actions based on police and prosecutorial

misconduct and employer and governmental discrimination. He regularly

consults and defends charges of professional discipline. He represents

plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of personal and business related

matters, working with others in the firm's various practice areas.

Carrying on the firm's original and continuing objective of successful practice

combined with public service, he has represented numerous persons who

have suffered from unfair treatment or unjust charges, frequently on a pro

bono basis. He has served as post-conviction counsel seeking new trials

and/or parole release in violent felony cases, predominantly homicides.

Spanning over four decades, some cases, involving George Whitmore, Rubin

"Hurricane" Carter, Darryl King, Albert Victory and Yusef Salaam, have been

widely publicized as well as the subject of books and films.

A relentless worker, Mr. Baldock still enjoys life's human comedies and

sometimes manages to break away to sing and play jazz drums.

PRACTICE AREAS

Civil Rights, Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics, International Human Rights, Criminal Defense

EDUCATION

Hamilton College (B.A., 1950)

Maryland University School of Foreign Studies and Sorbo nne University (1950-51)

Harvard University (LL.B., 1958)

BAR ADMISSIONS

Admitted to bar, 1958, New York; 1960, U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 1973, U.S. Supreme Court; 1981, U.S. District Court, Northern District of

New York; U.S. District Court, Western District of New York.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

http://www.blhny.com/attorney.cfm/ID/15

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 64 of 82

Page 65: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of New York, 1958-1960

Director and Vice President- Brotherhood-In-Action, Inc., 1972/1973-2006

Director, The Brookdale Revolving Fund, Inc., 1973-1976

Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Member, Special Committee on Penology, 1974-1980; Member,

Committee on the Judiciary, 2000-2003; Member, Council on Criminal Justice, 2004-201 0)

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;

New York Criminal Bar Association; Kings County Criminal Bar Association; National Lawyers Guild; New York

State Bar Association; New York County Lawyers Association; Brooklyn Bar Association.

REPRESENTATIVE CASES

People v. Wise, Richardson, McCray, Salaam & Santana, 194 Misc.2d 481, 752 N.Y.S.2d 837 (N.Y. Co. 2002)

(Newly discovered evidence results in dismissal of criminal charges against Yusef Salaam and other

defendants in "Central Park Jogger" case ten years after conviction).

Busch v. City of New York, eta/., 224 F.R.D. 81 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (Section 1983 action against police officers

alleging excessive force in deadly shooting; new trial for plaintiff estate to prevent manifest injustice when jury

verdict against weight of evidence).

People v. Gurley, 197 A.D.2d 534, 602 N.Y.S.2d 184 (2nd Dept. 1993) (Previously undisclosed and newly

discovered police ballistics report warrants vacating murder conviction after over 22 years in prison).

Skibo v City of New York/Taylor v. City of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (Granting extensive

discovery in two police misconduct civil rights actions - lAD procedure manual, internal evaluations of lAD

effectiveness and 150 civilian complaint reports in each of two precincts over five years; rejecting self critical

analysis and executive privilege claims).

U.S. v. Freeman, 498 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1974) (Reversing conviction after non-jury trial and holding that guilt for

conspiracy to import cocaine and for counts of importation, possession and distribution with intent to sell could

not be based on efforts to conceal several conspirators after conspiracy had miscarried).

State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420, 354 A.2d 627 (1976) (Reversing 1967 triple murder convictions on Brady grounds

due to suppression of evidence impeaching eyewitness testimony and prosecution's knowing use of false

testimony); State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 139, 449 A.2d 1280, 1309 (1981) (Four to three decision upholding 1977

second trial convictions); Carter v. Rafferty, 621 F. Supp. 5332 (D.C.N.J. 1985) (Sarokin, J.: Granting habeas

corpus writ and vacating 1977 conviction due to prosecution withholding material evidence and misrepresenting

result of polygraph testimony of the only testifying eyewitness and contention of racial motivation for shooting

death of Caucasian males by African Americans based on defendants' race without evidence of racial

animosity), affd. 826 F.2d 1288 (3rd Cir. 1987) (Due process Brady grounds sufficient, without considering

racial motivation prejudice issues).

King v. New York State Division of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423, 598 N.Y.S.2d 245 (1st Dept. 1993) (Denial of parole

improper where solely based on felony murder shooting victim being off-duty police officer and where parole

commissioner considered factors outside those statutorily authorized - including penal philosophy, historical

treatment of individuals convicted of murder, death penalty, life imprisonment without parole, and

consequences to society - in an attempt to determine appropriate penalty for murder; board should fairly

consider all relevant statutory factors and not re-sentence according to personal opinions).

http :1/www. blhny. com/ attorney .cfm/ID/15

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 65 of 82

Page 66: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

U.S. ex ref. Whitmore v. Malcolm, 476 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1973) (Two to one decision affirming denial of habeas

corpus writ; dissent based on trial court failure to grant hearing to consider newly discovered eyewitness

evidence); (Rehearing en bane granted March 1, 1973 - parties to file briefs addressed to progress of Kings

County District Attorney investigation); (Order April 23, 1973 vacating order denying petition for habeas corpus

and dismissing appeal as moot); Whitmore v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 638, 436 N.Y.S. 2d 323 (2d Dept.

1981) (Upholding cause of action against police officers for misconduct and malicious prosecution and ruling

that 1973 dismissal of the charges on District Attorney's motion was a favorable determination of criminal

proceedings for purposes of civil action since it was based on discovery of "fresh evidence" which cast doubt

upon sufficiency and trustworthiness of trial evidence).

http://www.blhny.com/attomey.cfm/ID/15

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 66 of 82

Page 67: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit F

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 67 of 82

Page 68: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VERNON BRANCH,

PLAINTIFF

vs

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,

DEFENDANT

STATEOFNEWYORK )

COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) SS.:

11 Civ 3048 (JGK)(MHD) AFFIRMATION OF RICHARD D. EMERY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF JAMES I. MEYERSON FORAN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

RICHARD D. EMERY, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Court of the State of New York, affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:

1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law in and before this Court, among others, and I submit this Affirmation in support in support of the Application of James I. Meyerson for the award of attorney's fees and costs as an attorney for the prevailing party Plaintiff in this litigation.

2. I was admitted to the Bar of the State ofNew York in 1971 and I have been involved as a civil rights litigator for most all of my career as an attorney.

3. Since 1971, I have been an attorney litigating various civil rights matters and I am familiar generally with the civil rights bar in New York City.

4. I attach hereto a copy of my resume which reflects my body of work over the course of my professional career including my various professional affiliations over the course of time.

5. I have known James I. Meyerson since 1978.

6. In the past and in the course of my career, I have regularly consulted with Mr. Meyerson on civil rights matters, particularly on Section 1983 issues and, more specifically, on matters related to police misconduct litigation.

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 68 of 82

Page 69: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

7. With respect to the latter, Mr. Meyerson has been known and continues to be known as an expert in the area and an innovator in the litigation of such cases.

8. In my opinion, Mr. Meyerson is one of the best, most dedicated civil rights/civil liberties attorneys in New York.

9. Mr. Meyerson was litigating police misconduct cases even before it became a specialized field and he is one of those attorneys who, because of his work, helped to create police misconduct litigation as a specialized area of the law.

I 0. To my knowledge, Mr. Meyerson enjoys the reputation among the civil rights bar as one of the leading advocates in Section I983 litigation, particularly in matters involving police misconduct.

II. What is particularly impressive about Mr. Meyerson's body of work is that his practice in the area of Section I983 litigation and in police misconduct litigation involves not only a trial court level expertise but, as well, an appellate court expertise where Mr. Meyerson has argued numerous Section I983 cases in many of the Circuit Courts of Appeal throughout the country including many such cases in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Mr. Meyerson has had actual experience in successfully arguing a civil rights case before the United States Supreme Court concerning an issue related to the award of fees to a successful plaintiff litigant, New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, I 00 S. Ct. 2024, 64 L. Ed. 2d 723 (I980).

I2. In my judgment, Section I983 police misconduct litigation is complex and high risk.

I3. The instant litigation is an example of police misconduct litigation that is complex and high risk.

14. In my judgment Mr. Meyerson possesses sophistication and experience in the area of police misconduct trial and appellate litigation that few attorneys have who practice in the police misconduct area.

I5. By analogy, in the area of Section 1983 police misconduct litigation, Mr. Meyerson's skills, judgment, and experience are equal to that of a senior partner in a large commercial firm.

I6. Based on my understanding of the claims in this litigation, this is case which reflects the necessity of the highest levels of skill to prepare, prosecute and achieve a successful conclusion.

17. It is the exception, when a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, exclusive of fees and costs, is tendered by the City in a six figure amount as was the case here.

2

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 69 of 82

Page 70: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

18. I understand that Mr. Meyerson accepts these cases and has historically taken them on based on a contingency and that he has never charged a client a specific fee in lieu of contingency.

19. I understand that Mr. Meyerson is seeking a rate of$650.00 per hour for his successful efforts and work in this litigation.

20. It is my judgment and opinion that the hourly rate which Mr. Meyerson is seeking is a reasonable hourly rate for his time investment throughout the entire period of the litigation. Based on what I know with respect to hourly rate fees, the rate which Mr. Meyerson is seeking is reflective of the prevailing rates for persons of Mr. Meyerson's background and experience and sophistication and expertise in the field of Section 1983 trial and appellate litigation and, within that field, the very specialized area of police misconduct trial and appellate litigation, and that the rate which Mr. Meyerson is seeking is fair and reasonable market rate for the services he provided in this case.

21. I understand, too, that Mr. Meyerson has represented that, over the course of the pre-Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, he invested approximately 375 hours of work in the litigation. I have reviewed his time records respecting such.

22. In my judgment, the 375 hours appear to be reasonable given the complexities of the issues.

23. Finally, given the high risk of the case and the inherent complexities in bringing such a case to a successful conclusion, I believe that in rare cases, such as this one, consideration of a multiplier is appropriate to encourage others to become involved in the vigorous representation of individuals where their constitutional and civil rights have been placed in jeopardy by law enforcement officials.

DATED: New York, New York April18, 2012

3

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 70 of 82

Page 71: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Richard D. Emery, Partner

Mr. Emery is a founding partner of the finn of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. His practice focuses on civil rights, election law, commercial litigation, intellectual property, and entertainment. Mr. Emery enjoys a national reputation as a litigator, representing clients at all levels, from the U.S. Supreme Court to federal and state appellate and trial courts in New York, Washington, D.C., California, Washington State, and others.

Prior to forming Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, Mr. Emery had his own firm and was a partner at Lankenau Kovner & Bickford, where he successfully challenged the structure of the New York City Board of Estimate under the one-person, one-vote doctrine, resulting in the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous invalidation of the Board on constitutional grounds. Before then he was a staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, and director of the Institutional Legal Services Project in Washington State, which represented persons held in juvenile, prison, and mental health facilities. He .was a law clerk for the Honorable Gus J. Solomon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Mr. Emery was a member of Governor Cuomo's Commission on Integrity in Government and is a member of both the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Commission on Public Integrity. He has also taught at the New York University and University of Washington schools of law.

Education

Columbia Law School, J.D., cum laude, 1970, Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar

Brown University, B.A., 1967

Admissions

U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Ninth, and Federal Circuits; U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Washington; New York; Washington

Memberships

New York State Commission on Government Integrity; New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct; National Police Accountability Project Advisory Board; Municipal Art Society Law Committee; Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committees on Election Law, Criminal Justice Operations, and Criminal Courts

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 71 of 82

Page 72: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Honors

Children's Rights Champion Award, 2008; New York Super Lawyer 2006 & 2007, The Top Attorneys in Manhattan; Common Cause, I Love an Ethical New York Award, October 2000; New York Magazine, Best Lawyers in New York, 1995; Park River Democrats Public Service Award, 1989; New York State Bar Association, DavidS. Michaels Memorial Award for Courageous Efforts in Promoting Integrity in the Criminal Justice System, 1987

Representative Cases

Successfully represented a class of approximately 100,000 pretrial detainees who were illegally strip searched in McBean, et al. v. The City of New York, et al.

Successfully represented the Public Advocate ofNew York to gain access to police records in Green v. Safir.

Represented John McCain in his bid to gain access to the 2000 New York Republican presidential primary ballot in Molinari v. Powers.

Preserved New York City candidates' four-to-one public financing matching funds in New York City v. The Campaign Finance Board.

Represented the New York City Council in litigation to guarantee its approval of cable . franchise renewals in City Council v. The Public Service Commission.

Obtained injunction to keep polling stations in nursing homes in Smith v. New York City Board of Elections.

Represented a class of more than 60,000 misdemeanor detainees in a successful challenge to New York City's strip search policy in Tyson v. City of New York.

Prevailed in a challenge allowing Steve Forbes to gain a place on the ballot for the New York State presidential primary in Rockefeller v. Powers.

Successfully represented corporate officers in a securities fraud class action (jury trial to verdict) in ICN v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Selected Publications

"Why the Civil Rights Laws Do Not Deter Police Misconduct: The Conundrum of Indemnification and a Proposed Solution," Fordham Urban Law Journal, December 2000 (with Ilann M. Maazel)

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 72 of 82

Page 73: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

"Five Cases Follow Traditional Course," New York Law Journal, October 2, 2000 (with Nina Morrison)

"The Verdict: Poor Training and Supervision," New York Times, February 26, 2000

"Dazzling Crime Statistics Come at a Price," New York Times, February 19, 1999

"Disorderly Conduct Statute and the First Amendment," New York Law Journal, October 20, 1997 (with Andrew G. Celli, Jr.)

"Four Ways to Clean Up the Police," New York Times, August 26, 1997

"Frank Askin, Defending Rights: A Life in Law and Politics," New York Law Journal, June 13, 1997

"Adversary System: Cameras in the Courtroom after O.J.?," New York Times, October 18, 1995

"Weighted Voting," Touro Law Review 159, 1989

"In New York City, Power to the People," New York Times, May 6, 1989

"The Even Sadder New York Police Saga," New York Times, December 12, 1987

"End New York City's One-Party System," New York Times, September 19, 1987

"Giuliani's Unfair Tactics," New York Times, October 31, 1985

"Curbing New York's Police," New York Times, May 7, 1985

"Pointless Grand Jury Secrecy," New York Times, February 11, 1985

"Recast New York's Board of Estimate," New York Times, September 15, 1984

"Courts Can't Do It All, New York Times, July 16, 1983

The Rights of Mental Patients: An ACLU Handbook (New York: A von Books, 1978) (with Bruce J. Ennis)

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 73 of 82

Page 74: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Exhibit G

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 74 of 82

Page 75: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Meyerson time and expenses for: Andrew Rosa, Gaby Day, Mirsad Isufi, and Allen Rubin

Time:

Date Time Activity Spent (hours)

12/31/10 .5 Met with Jeffrey Rothman and referring attorney to discuss case

03/05/11 2.5 Meeting With Andrew Rosa 03/05/11 1.5 Review of Rosa and other HLD Documents 03/06/11 5 Draft of Rosa Complaint and Related

Discovery Materials 03/06/11 .3 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa 03/06/11 .2 Telephone and Email Communication with

Gaby Day 03/06/11 .3 Email Communication with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/07/11 . 4 Telephone Communications and Email

Communications with Andrew Rosa 03/07/11 . 3 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/07/11 .4 Review of Rosa Documents 03/08/11 .4 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/08/11 1 Work on Draft of Rosa Complaint 03/10/11 1 Review of Search Warrant

Application/Search Warrant 03/10/11 .2 Email Communications With Jeffrey

Rothman 03/10/11 1.5 Work on Draft of Rosa Complaint 03/10/11 .2 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa 03/10/11 .5 Review of Document related to Arrests 03/11/11 3 Meeting With Gaby Day 03/11/11 .2 Email Communications with Gaby Day 03/11/11 . 3 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/11/11 . 1 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa

03/11/11 4.5 Draft of Gaby Day Complaint and related papers

03/12/11 . 3 Telephone and Email Communications with Andrew Rosa

03/13/11 1.5 Work on Draft of Draft of Gaby Day

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 75 of 82

Page 76: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Complaint 03/13/11 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/14/11 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/14/11 .2 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa 03/15/11 .2 Email Communication with Gaby Day and

Email Communications with Gaby Day 03/16/11 . 4 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/16/11 .2 Telephone Communication with Gaby Day 03/17/11 2.5 Work on Drafts of Andrew Rosa and Gaby

Day Complaints 03/17/11 .2 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa

and Gaby Day 03/25/11 . 1 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa

and Gaby Day 03/30/11 .1 Email Communications with Gaby Day 04/21/11 . 1 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa

and Gaby Day

04/29/11 2.5 Work on Draft of Rosa and Day Complaints

04/29/11 .3 Telephone Communication and Email Communication with Jeffrey Rothman

04/30/11 . 1 Email Communication with Jeffrey Rothman

05/01/11 . 1 Email Communication with Gaby Day 05/02/11 .2 Preparation of Statement of

Relatedness Day to Rosa 05/02/11 . 5 Letter Communications with Andrew Rosa

and Gaby Day regarding the filing of the Complaint

05/02/11 . 1 Letter Communication to Process Service

05/02/11 .2 Email Communications and discussion with Jeffrey Rothman regarding the filing of the Rosa and Day Complaints, etc.

05/03/11 .2 ECF Communications respecting the filing of the Rosa and Day Complaints

05/06/11 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey Rothman

05/13/11 . 1 ECF filing of Affidavits of Service in Rosa and Day

05/23/11 . 1 Telephone and Email Communications

2

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 76 of 82

Page 77: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

with Assistant Corporation Counsel Camiel Richards

06/02/11 .5 Draft of Rule 26 Voluntary Disclosures in Rosa and Day

06/02/11 . 1 Email Communication with Jeffrey Rothman

06/03/11 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey Rothman

06/18/11 .5 Review of Rubin and Isufi Complaints 06/18/11 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 06/18/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards 06/20/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards 06/20/11 .1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 06/20/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with Assistant

Corporation Counsel David Pollack 07/14/11 .2 Email Communications with Camiel

Richards 07/14/11 . 1 Letter Communication with Process

Service -re: Brian Conroy 07/14/11 . 3 Work on Rule 26 Voluntary Disclosures

in Rosa and Day 07/14/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack 07/15/11 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 07/15/11 . 3 Telephone Communication and Email

Communications with Camiel Richards 07/16/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 07/18/11 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 07/26/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 07/27/11 . 1 ECF Email respecting Affidavit of

Service on Conroy in Rosa and Day 08/01/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 08/03/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards 08/04/11 . 1 Email Communication With Camiel

Richards and Davaid Pollack 08/04/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards 08/04/11 . 1 Letter Communication with Process

Service respecting Braille service

3

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 77 of 82

Page 78: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

08/04/11 . 1 Email Communications with David Pollack

08/04/11 . 1 Telephone and Email Communications with Process Service

08/08/11 . 1 ECF Email Communication respecting filing of Affidavit of Service

08/26/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel Richards and David Pollack

08/29/11 .2 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa 09/06/11 . 3 Telephone Communication with Gaby Day

and Email Communication with Gaby Day 09/06/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards and David Pollack 09/06/11 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 09/12/11 .2 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 09/14/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards and David Pollack 09/14/11 .2 Email Communications with David

Pollack 09/14/11 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 09/15/11 .2 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa

and Gaby Day 09/15/11 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 09/16/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 09/17/11 .2 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa 09/18/11 .1 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa 09/20/11 . 1 Email Communication with Gaby Day 09/20/11 . 1 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 09/30/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 09/30/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack

and Camiel Richards 10/01/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 10/01/11 . 1 Email Communication with Jeffrey

Rothman 10/04/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack 10/04/11 .2 Email Communication with David Pollack 10/11/11 .3 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack and Jeffrey Rothman 10/11/11 .2 Email Communications with David

Pollack 10/11/11 . 1 Email Communication with Jeffrey

Rothman

4

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 78 of 82

Page 79: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

10/14/11 .1 Email Communication with David Pollack 10/17/11 .2 Letter Communication to Judge Sand 10/17/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 10/17/11 . 1 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 10/18/11 .5 Review of Answer in Gaby Day 10/18/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 10/18/11 .2 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 10/24/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack 10/24/11 .2 Email Communications with David

Pollack 10/24/11 .2 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 11/02/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack 11/02/11 .2 Email Communications with David

Pollack 11/02/11 .2 Email Communications with Gaby Day 11/02/11 .2 Email Communications with Andrew Rosa 11/03/11 . 1 Email Communication with Gaby Day 11/04/11 .2 Telephone and Email Communications

with David Pollack 11/04/11 1 Review of Rosa, Rubin, and Isufi

Answers 11/04/11 . 1 Letter Communication with David

Pollack 11/04/11 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 11/11/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with Jose

Lopez in Judge Sand's chambers 11/11/11 .2 Email Communication with David Pollack 11/14/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with Jose

Lopez 11/14/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 11/16/11 . 1 Email Communication to Counsel

regarding the scheduling of conference with Judge Sand

11/16/11 . 1 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa and Gabriel Day

11/17/11 . 1 Email Communication with Gaby Day 11/30/11 . 1 Email Communication with Camiel

Richards and David Pollack 12/01/11 .2 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack and Email Communication with David Pollack and Camiel Richards

5

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 79 of 82

Page 80: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

12/05/11 2.5 Review of Materials in advance of Conference with Judge Sand on December 6, 2011

12/05/11 .2 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 12/06/11 . 8 Conference With Judge Sand and

discussion with Jeffrey Rothman 12/07/11 2.5 Review of Defendants Rule 26

Disclosures and Documents attached thereto and Other related Documents

12/12/11 .2 Email Communications with Gaby Day 12/21/11 . 1 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack 12/21/11 . 1 Email Communication with David Pollack 12/27/11 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 01/09/12 . 1 Email Communication with Counsel 01/10/12 .4 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman

01/11/12 . 1 Email Communication with Jeffrey Rothman

01/30/12 .2 Email Communication with Jeffrey Rothman

01/31/12 .2 Email Communication with Jeffrey Rothman

02/07/12 .2 Email Communications with Jeffrey Rothman

03/09/12 .2 Email Communications and spoke with Jeffrey Rothman

03/16/12 . 3 Email and spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 03/19/12 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/27/12 .2 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa

and Gaby Day 03/28/12 . 1 Email Communication with Jeffrey

Rothman 03/29/12 .3 Email Communication and spoke with

Jeffrey Rothman 04/03/11 . 1 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 04/05/12 .2 Email Communication with Gaby Day 04/05/12 . 1 Telephone Communication with David

Pollack 04/05/12 .2 Email Communication and spoke with

Jeffrey Rothman 04/10/12 .2 Email Communications with Gaby Day 04/10/12 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 04/11/12 . 1 Email Communications with Jeffrey

6

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 80 of 82

Page 81: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Rothman 04/14/12 .2 Email Communication and spoke with

Jeffrey Rothman 04/15/12 .2 Telephone Communication with Gaby Day 04/15/12 .1 Email Communication with Andrew Rosa 04/15/12 . 3 Telephone Communication with Jeffrey

Rothman 04/16/12 .2 Telephone Conference with Judge Sand

and counsel including David Hazan 04/16/12 .2 Telephone Communication with Jeffrey

Rothman and David Pollack 04/16/12 .2 Telephone Communication with Andrew

Rosa 04/16/12 .2 Telephone Communications with Jeffrey

Rothman 04/23/12 . 1 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 04/30/12 .2 Spoke with Jeffrey Rothman 05/01/12 .1 Conference Telephone Communication

with Mr. Rothman and Mr. Pollack 05/01/12 .2 Telephone Communications with Mr.

Rothman and with Judge Sand's chambers 05/01/12 . 3 Letter Communication to Judge Sand 05/02/12 . 1 Email Communication with Mr. Day 05/09/12 . 1 Spoke with Mr. Rothman 05/10/12 1.0 Review of Materials From Mr. Pollack 05/10/12 .2 Telephone and Email Communication with

Andrew Rosa 05/10/12 .2 Telephone and Email Communication with

Gaby Day 05/12/12 1.5 Review of Defendants' Responses to the

Plaintiffs' Discovery Requests and Previously transmitted documents

05/12/12 . 3 Email Communication with Mr. Pollack

05/14/12 . 1 Email Communication with Mr. Rothman 05/15/12 .2 Telephone Communications with Mr.

Rothman 64.2

64.2 hours X $650 per hour= $41,730 in Meyerson fees

7

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 81 of 82

Page 82: Myerson Attorney Fees Declaration in Civil Rights Suit Against NYPD

Expenses:

05/02/11 $350.00 Filing Fee for Andrew Rosa 05/02/11 $350.00 Filing Fee for Gaby Day 05/02/11 $115.84 Hard Copy Printing-Reproduction Costs

in Rosa and Day 05/12/11 $720.00 Presidential Process Service-Service

Costs in Andrew Rosa 05/12/11 $260.00 Presidential Process Service-Service

Costs in Gaby Day 07/26/11 $190.00 Presidential Process Service-Service

Costs in Gaby Day 08/05/11 $190.00 Presidential Process Service-Service

Costs in Andrew Rosa/Gaby Day = $2175.84 in Meyerson expenses

8

Case 1:11-cv-02942-LBS Document 15 Filed 06/08/12 Page 82 of 82