Matter of Starna v New York City Fire Department
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Public employment and religious-accommodation challenges to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for a New York City firefighter.
The lower court granted relief reinstating the firefighter and later awarded him attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements in this CPLR article 78 [special proceeding used to challenge actions or determinations of administrative agencies and public bodies] case.
The Appellate Division reversed the money judgment awarding $28,940.47 in attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and denied that branch of the petition.
Because under the general rule governing article 78 proceedings, attorneys' fees are not recoverable unless authorized by agreement, statute, or court rule, and none applied here.
Background
Joseph Starna commenced a proceeding under CPLR article 78 [special proceeding used to challenge actions or determinations of administrative agencies and public bodies] after the City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel upheld the New York City Fire Department's January 3, 2022 denial of his request for a religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate. He sought, among other relief, reinstatement as a firefighter and an award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs.
Lower Court Decision
In an order dated June 21, 2023, the Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the branch of the petition seeking reinstatement and directed a hearing on attorneys' fees and costs. After that hearing, the court ruled on May 23, 2024 that Starna was entitled to $28,080 in attorneys' fees plus costs and disbursements, and a money judgment dated July 30, 2024 was entered for $28,940.47.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the decision because no appeal lies from a decision alone, but reversed the money judgment. It held that the branch of the petition seeking attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements should have been denied, and awarded one bill of costs to the New York City Fire Department and the City of New York. The reinstatement relief was not disturbed in this appeal.
Legal Significance
This decision reaffirms that prevailing parties in CPLR article 78 [special proceeding used to challenge actions or determinations of administrative agencies and public bodies] proceedings ordinarily cannot recover attorneys' fees from the losing side absent a contractual provision, a statute, or a court rule authorizing fee-shifting. Even where a petitioner succeeds on the merits against a government agency, fee recovery is unavailable without such authority.
Winning an article 78 challenge to an agency determination does not, by itself, entitle the petitioner to attorneys' fees; there must be a specific agreement, statute, or court rule authorizing the award.