CASCADE MUSHROOM v. AUX DELICES DES BOIS

It was error to reduce the $19,923,75 fee award recommended by the Special Referee to $9000 with no explanation other than that the amount recommended "is excessive in light of the value of the underlying action," and it was also error to eliminate the disbursements award without any explanation at all (see, Holskin v. 22 Prince St. Assocs., 178 A.D.2d 347). Upon review, we find that the hours claimed by plaintiff's attorneys are adequately documented and that the record otherwise supports the Special Referee's findings as to the reasonable value of their services attributable to the contempt (see, Namer v. 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 A.D.2d 705), except that 1.1 hours of legal research were billed twice and a hearing that took only two hours was billed at four hours. Accordingly, we modify so as to reduce the fee award recommended by the Special Referee by $852.50. Concerning the refusal to award prejudgment interest, we note that both parties assume that contempt proceedings are equitable in nature, and find no abuse of discretion where plaintiff was awarded prejudgment interest in its underlying action for goods sold and delivered (CPLR 5001[a]; cf., Matter of Meloni v. Goord, 267 A.D.2d 977, lv dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 944). We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.