Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing to determine the amount of compensation due to the appellant's former attorney.
The burden of proof was upon the respondent, the appellant's former attorney, to establish the necessity for and the reasonable value of the services rendered (see, Matter of Potts, 213 App. Div. 59, 61, affd 241 N.Y. 593). The papers submitted in support of the respondent's cross motion failed to include evidence as to the difficulty of the questions involved, the skill required to handle the case, specifics as to the time and labor required, the respondent's experience, ability and reputation, and the customary fee charged for similar services (see, Matter of Schaich, 55 A.D.2d 914, lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 802; Matter of Freeman, 40 A.D.2d 397, affd 34 N.Y.2d 1, 9; Matter of Potts, supra, at 62).
Absent such proof, the record was insufficient for the court to determine the amount of counsel fees based upon a proper consideration of all of the relevant factors (see, Teichner v W J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979; Matter of Ury, 108 A.D.2d 816; Reisch Klar v Sadofsky, 78 A.D.2d 517). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.