Hunt v. Sharp, 649 N.E.2d 1201 (N.Y. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Hunt v. Sharp, 649 N.E.2d 1201 (N.Y. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Imrie v. Ratto (nyappdiv, 2020-10-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Imrie v. Ratto (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
As to his claim for reimbursement from Howard and Adirondack for his litigation expenses against Erie, plaintiff acknowledges the established "American rule" that a litigant can only recover counsel fees and disbursements from an adversary where authorized by statute, contract or otherwise ( Hunt v Sharp , 85 NY2d 883, 885 [1995] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and thus relies upon the exception known as the Shindler rule.
cited Cited as authority (rule) CWCapital Invs. LLC v. CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The "narrow exception" involving litigation with a third party ( Hunt v Sharp, 85 NY2d 883, 885 [1995]) does not apply here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chicago Title Insurance v. LaPierre
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We note that to the extent that the Supreme Court determined that a narrow exception to the American Rule as set forth in Shindler v Lamb ( 25 Misc 2d 810 [Sup Ct, NY County 1959], affd 10 AD2d 826 [1960], affd 9 NY2d 621 [1961]) may permit recovery of certain attorneys’ fees and costs, that exception is inapplicable herein (see Hunt v Sharp, 85 NY2d 883, 885 [1995]; Chase Manhattan Bank v Each Individual Under *823 writer Bound to Lloyd’s Policy No. 790/ 004A89005, 258 AD2d 1, 5-6 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Macy's, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Corp.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
As the Court of Appeals explained in Hunt v Sharp ( 85 NY2d 883, 885 [1995]), “[w]hatever the proper scope” of the exception to the general rule, the exception only allows recovery of fees commenced against a third party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Versatile Housewares & Gardening Systems, Inc. v. Thill Logistics, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · confidence medium
This is a “narrow exception,” and the Court of Appeals has been very clear that “[w]hatever the proper scope of [the Shindler ] exception, it is unavailable where ... the purported ‘third-party’ wrongdoer is, either legally or as a practical matter, the same as the claimant’s opponent in the main action.” Hunt v. Sharp, 85 N.Y.2d 883 , 626 N.Y.S.2d 57 , 649 N.E.2d 1201, 1202 (1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nardiello v. Stone
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · confidence medium
Because the purported third-party wrongdoers, ANS’ shareholders, are the legal or practical equivalent of ANS, the narrow exception of Shindler is unavailable (see, Hunt v Sharp, supra, at 885-886).
cited Cited "see" Morrow v. Royce
E.D.N.Y · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v Corso, 85 N.Y.2d 883 , 626 N.Y.S.2d 753 (1995); People v. McCarthy, 250 N.Y. 358, 361 , 165 N.E. 810, 811 (1929) (“only one such application can be made”) (predecessor statute).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wright v. Selle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
With respect to the claim for counsel fees, we note that “[c]ounsel fees are not recoverable in an action unless specifically provided for by statute or contract,” which is not the case herein (Fernandez v Koretz [appeal No. 2], 267 AD2d 1025, 1025 [1999]; see City of New York v Zuckerman, 234 AD2d 160, 161 [1996], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 845 [1997]; see also Hunt v Sharp, 85 NY2d 883, 885 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bridgford Hunt, as President of the Board of Managers of the Elysabeth Condominium, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant,
v.
Peter Sharp Et Al., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents. Bridgford Hunt Et Al., Additional Counterclaim Defendants-Respondents-Appellants
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 28, 1995.
649 N.E.2d 1201
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Audrey S. Feinberg, Irvington, for appellants-respondents., Brown Raysman & Millstein, New York City (Kenneth M. Block and John C. Ohman of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

There is support in the record for the findings of the courts below that plaintiff board of managers acted in bad faith and without basis in law when it refused defendants’ request for permission to alter the building’s structure so as to connect defendants’ existing basement garage to an affiliated basement garage in an adjacent building (see, Humphrey v State of New York, 60 NY2d 742, 743-744). We also agree with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that defendants are not entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees from the individual board members whose alleged misconduct purportedly led the board to bring this action against them.

Under the "American rule,” to which this State adheres (see, e.g., Chapel v Mitchell, 84 NY2d 345), the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect its reasonable attorneys’ fees from its unsuccessful opponents (see, Alyeska Pipeline Co. v Wilderness Socy., 421 US 240, 247; Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491). Contrary to defendants’ contentions, the narrow exception that has previously been recognized where recovery is sought from a third-party wrongdoer is inapplicable in these circumstances (see, Shindler v Lamb, 25 Misc 2d 810, affd 10 AD2d 826, affd 9 NY2d 621). Whatever the proper scope of that exception, it is unavailable where, as here, the purported "third-party” wrongdoer is, either legally or as a practical matter, the same as the claimant’s opponent in the main action. Although an unincorporated association and its individual board members may be conceptually separated for some legal purposes (see, e.g., Gem Music Corp. v Taylor, 294 NY 34; Polin v Kaplan, 257 NY 277; McCabe v [*886] Goodfellow, 133 NY 89), no such separation is possible in this case, where the alleged third-party wrongdoers, all individual board members, committed the claimed wrong in their capacities as managers of the association that initiated the main action.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.