Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly applied section 224 Jud. of the Judiciary Law and section 983 Tax of the Tax Law in calculating plaintiff's damages. Interest on the damage award, however, should have been calculated from the date that liability was established (see, Rohring v City of Niagara Falls, 84 N.Y.2d 60, 68; Love v State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 540, 544-545). Thus, we modify the order and judgment by directing that interest be computed from March 11, 1992.
We further modify the order and judgment by vacating the award of attorney's fees and remit the matter for further proceedings on plaintiff's fee application. Plaintiff's counsel failed to submit adequate documentation detailing the hours expended or the services rendered (see, Burke v Crosson, 191 A.D.2d 998; Matter of Rahmey v Blum, 95 A.D.2d 294, 300-301). Further, the record fails to establish that the requested hourly rate of $125 per hour for all services reflects "`the customary fee charged for similar services by lawyers in the community with like experience and of comparable reputation to those by whom the prevailing party was represented'" (Matter of Rahmey v Blum, supra, at 302, quoted in Burke v Crosson, supra, at 999).