Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 560

DECLARATION of Joshua P. Fitch (Master Declaration) in Support re: 559 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Disbursements.. Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., # 2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Nathaniel Smith, Esq., # 3 Exhibit C - Declaration of Joshua P. Fitch, Esq., # 4 Exhibit D - Declaration of Gerald M. Cohen, Esq., # 5 Exhibit E - Declaration of John Lenoir, Esq., # 6 Exhibit F - Declaration of Howard A. Suckle, Esq., # 7 Exhibit G - Declaration of Magdalena Bauza, # 8 Exhibit H - Billing Entries and Costs for Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., # 9 Exhibit I - Billing Entries and Costs for Nathaniel Smith, Esq., # 10 Exhibit J - Billing Entries for Joshua P. Fitch, Esq., # 11 Exhibit K - Billing Entries and Costs for Gerald M. Cohen, Esq., # 12 Exhibit L - Billing Entries for John Lenoir, Esq., # 13 Exhibit M - Billing Entries for Howard A. Suckle, Esq., # 14 Exhibit N - Billing Entries for Magdalena Bauza, # 15 Exhibit O - Declaration of Jonathan Abady, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., # 16 Exhibit P - Declaration of Christopher Galiardo, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., # 17 Exhibit Q - Declaration of Afsaan Saleem, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., # 18 Exhibit R - Declaration of Michael L. Spiegel, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Nathaniel Smith, Esq., # 19 Exhibit S - Declaration of Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Joshua P. Fitch, Esq. and Gerald M. Cohen, Esq., partners of Cohen & Fitch LLP, # 20 Exhibit T - Declaration of Irving Cohen, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Joshua P. Fitch, Esq. and Gerald M. Cohen, Esq., partners of Cohen & Fitch LLP, # 21 Exhibit U - Declaration of Katherine Smith, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Joshua P. Fitch, Esq. and Gerald M. Cohen, Esq., partners of Cohen & Fitch LLP, # 22 Exhibit V - Declaration of Hugh M. Mo, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of John Lenoir, Esq., # 23 Exhibit W - Declaration of Jeffrey Schlanger, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of John Lenoir, Esq., # 24 Exhibit X - Declaration of David Finkler, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Howard A. Suckle, Esq., # 25 Exhibit Y - Declaration of Mitchell Bloch, Esq. in support of the hourly rate of Howard A. Suckle, Esq., # 26 Exhibit Z - 2013-2014 National Law Journal Billing Survey of Large Firm Billing Rates, # 27 Exhibit AA - 2013-2014 New York City Law Department Year in Review for the Special Federal Litigation Division, # 28 Exhibit BB - New York City Law Department Special Federal Litigation Homepage, # 29 Exhibit CC - Verdict Search's Top Verdicts of 2013, # 30 Exhibit DD - Super Lawyers 2015 Annual List of Top Lawyers in the New York Metro Area, # 31 Exhibit EE - Order in Bernabe v. City of New York, 13 CV 5531 (LGS) relating to Mr. Norinsberg's hourly rate)(Fitch, Joshua)

EXHIBIT
“D”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-against-

DECLARATION OF
GERALD M. COHEN IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
10 CV 06005
(RWS)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defen
dants.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
DECLARATION OF GERALD M. COHEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
GERALD M. COHEN declares, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and under penalty
of perjury, as follows:
1.

I am one of the attorney's of record for plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft in the

above-captioned action.

As such, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances

concerning the prosecution of this action, and I submit this declaration is support of
plaintiff’s application, pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), for an
order awarding plaintiff attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party in this litigation
having obtained a Judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

against Defendant City of New York on all Federal and State law claims in this matter.
(See Rule 68 Judgment, Dkt. # 541).
2.

I am an attorney in good standing, admitted to practice law in the State of

New York, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and in the United
States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
3.

I was admitted to practice law in the State of New York in April 2005. I

began practicing in 2004 under a special practice order of the Appellate Division that
applies to attorneys at the New York City District Attorney’s Offices.
4.

Since June 2008, I have been a partner in the Manhattan law firm of Cohen

& Fitch LLP, which I co-founded with Joshua Fitch. Our office is located at 233
Broadway, Suite 1800, New York, New York 10279.
5.

My firm is dedicated to prosecuting claims of police misconduct and civil

rights. Specifically, Cohen & Fitch LLP specializes in litigating and trying civil rights
actions for those whose constitutional rights have been violated at the hands of state,
local officials, and private individuals/entities. In addition, my firm maintains a large
criminal defense practice throughout the five boroughs and the Eastern and Southern
Districts of New York.
ATTORNEY BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
6.

I graduated from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law School, cum laude,

in 2004. While I was in law school I worked for the Innocence Project, where two of my
clients previously convicted of crimes they did not commit were exonerated using DNA
evidence. I was also competitively selected to work in the Criminal Appeals clinic, where
I filed and argued a criminal appeal on behalf of an indigent defendant before the

Supreme Court of the State of New, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.
7.

Following my graduation from law school, I served as an Assistant District

Attorney in the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office. I was one of two new hires
competitively selected amongst my starting class of fifty eight (58) Assistant District
Attorneys to join the specialized Arson, Auto, and Economic Crimes (“AAEC”) Bureau.
AAEC is a unit of the Investigation Division that focuses on long term investigations into
white collar crimes, frauds, rackets, official misconduct (including police misconduct),
child pornography, arson, identity theft, cybercrimes, and other organized criminal
activity. My entire three year and two month tenure with the District Attorney’s office
was with AAEC.
8.

Attorneys in the District Attorney’s office undergo rigorous training in all

aspects of criminal prosecution litigation and are responsible, from inception through
trial, for an individual caseload of up to one hundred or more cases at any given time.
Our duties with respect to each case included defending motions to dismiss and suppress
evidence, and other various Constitutional challenges made by skilled criminal defense
attorneys on behalf of their clients.
9.

Within my first year as an Assistant District Attorney I was assigned felony

cases. I was the first assistant in my class to present a case the Grand Jury and have a
felony trial.
10.

During my tenure at the District Attorney’s Office, I presented hundreds of

cases to the Grand Jury and tried three felony cases to verdict.
11.

In addition to undergoing training and handling an individual caseload, I

was also assigned several long term investigations of individuals who had committed

insurance fraud, welfare fraud, unemployment insurance fraud, identity theft, and child
pornography crimes, as well as corporations who had committed various consumer
frauds. I worked closely with Detective Investigators who helped me investigate these
crimes through issuance of grand jury subpoenas for financial records, telephone and
internet records, as well as records from various government entities. I often had to sift
through and organize thousands of documents before authorizing arrests for prosecution.
Most of my investigations ultimately ended with the arrest of individuals who had
committed the crimes being investigated. Further, each investigation was subjected to
rigorous analysis of the existence of probable cause to support the arrest before it was
made.
12.

As a result of my experiences, I gained invaluable experience with police

procedures, NYPD policies and paperwork that has given me a distinct advantage in my
civil rights practice.
13.

In November 2007 I left the District Attorney’s Office and started my own

solo practice. I focused on criminal defense and worked per diem for several law firms
leveraging my skills as a seasoned litigator. I made court appearances, wrote motions,
and attended 50H hearings and depositions on behalf of several different law firms
throughout the City of New York. 1
14.

In particular, I worked extensively for the law firm of Papa Depaola &

Brounstein, a law firm that has had thousands of civil right cases against the City of New
York. As of counsel to that firm, I defended scores of 50H hearings, and attended dozens

1

I was hired as a per diem attorney by the following firms: Papa, Depaola & Brounstain; Shapiro Beilly
& Aronowitz, LLP; Ginarte, O’Dwyer Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winnograd LLP; The Law Offices of
Joseph Benfante; Ceaser & Napoli, LLP, Law Offices of Jonathan Gleit; Law Offices Jon L. Norinsberg,
and The Offices of Jay Ringel.

of depositions of plaintiffs and police officers in cases that had false arrest and malicious
prosecution causes of action. I was also hired to second seat several trials with their firm
and worked with attorneys from their firm to prepare those cases for trial.
15.

As a result of this experience and my knowledge of the inner workings of

the NYPD, I started filing civil rights claims for my own clients. As my practice grew, I
decided to partner with Joshua Fitch, my former colleague from the Bronx District
Attorney’s Office, who had gained civil trial experience working for a reputable
insurance defense firm in New York City.
16.

Since 2008 our firm has become one of the most recognized in this area of

practice due to quality of our work and our success against the City.
THE REQUESTED HOURLY RATE OF $500 IS REASONABLE
17.

On behalf of the plaintiff, I am seeking to recover attorney’s fees at the

hourly rate of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) for my work in this matter. In making this
request, I have assessed the rates of other attorneys like myself who have been practicing
law for more than eleven (11) years and who have attained a similar level of expertise in
the area of civil rights litigation in general, and police misconduct matters in particular.
18. In connection with this application, the Declarations of Zachary MargulisOhnuma, Esq., Irving Cohen, Esq. and Katherine Smith, Esq. are attached to the Master
Declaration as Exhibits S through U respectively.
19. An hourly rate of $500 is commensurate with my past success in the area of
civil rights litigation, particularly police matters.
20. Since I co-founded Cohen & Fitch, LLP in August 2008, I have taken four

(4) criminal cases to verdict, 2 ten (10) federal civil rights trials to verdict, 3 and assisted
on two (2) other civil rights trials, which my partner tried to verdict. 4 Of the fourteen
(14) trials I have personally tried on behalf of plaintiffs in civil rights actions and/or
defendants facing criminal charges, I have been successful in all but three (3).
21.

Further, in 2012 I was admitted to the United States Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit and since that time I have assisted my partner in writing four (4)
appeals - one (1) interlocutory - before the Second Circuit, with our firm achieving
success on two out of three, with one currently pending.
22.

In my career, I have handled over one thousand cases involving claims of

police misconduct and have obtained millions of dollars in settlements for my clients.
23.

Since forming Cohen & Fitch LLP, Mr. Fitch and myself have litigated

approximately 300 federal § 1983 cases in both the Eastern and Southern Districts of
New York. I have also handled hundreds of state court civil rights claims against the
City of New York.
24.

Further, while according to their 2011, 2012 and 2013 reports, the special

federal litigation unit consistently brags about a 70% success rate in federal trials, this
figure is not representative of their success in trials in which Cohen & Fitch LLP has
been lead trial counsel. (Master Dec., Ex. AA). In those cases Cohen & Fitch LLP has
won 55% of the trials taken to verdict where we acted as either lead or co-trial counsel.
2

All of my criminal trials resulted in acquittals for my clients and are thus sealed. Should the court want
the names of these cases I will ask my clients to sign authorizations to use their case names for purposes
of this motion.
3
Nibbs v. Goulart, 10 CV 3799 (VM)(AJP); Marshall v. The City of New York, 10 CV 02714
(JBW)(VVP); Clarke v. The City of New York, 10 CV 06330 (HBP); Perry v. The City of New York, 10
CV 04678 KAM)(VVP); Carter v. The City of New York,11 CV 2899 (WFK)(VVP); Francois v. The
City of New York, 11 CV 5874 (WFK)(VMS); Rucks v. The City of New York, 12 CV 04226
(KPF)(MHD); Perez v. Duran, 11 CV 5399 (SC); Brim v. City of New York, 13 CV 1082 (RER)(SJ)
4
Jacquez v. Gresko, 10 CV 9314 (JSR); Rentas v. The City of New York, 10 CV 6242 (AKH).

These percentages speak to both the difficulty of the cases handled by Cohen & Fitch
LLP and the particular skill and expertise that plaintiff's counsel has at trial, which
illustrates the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate.
25.

In addition, of all the cases that my firm has litigated against the City,

defendants have only succeeded in dispositive motion practice in one of those cases,
which speaks volumes of the quality of attorneys at Cohen & Fitch LLP and bespeaks the
reasonableness of the hourly rates submitted in this case especially in light of the City
usual self reported 70% success rate in dispositive motion practice in 2012. (Master
Decl., Ex. AA). Indeed, at least one thus far has become an important decision in current
civil rights jurisprudence. See e.g., Marshall v. Randall, 719 F.3d 113, 116 (2d 2013)
("This case asks us to consider what the Supreme Court meant by “any § 1983 claim
based on the witness' testimony”).
26.

My firm's experience in the civil rights and criminal defense field has

previously been acknowledged by this Court in Stinson v. City of New York, 282 F.R.D.
360 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that the attorneys of Cohen & Fitch LLP "are competent and
experienced in federal class action and federal civil rights litigation") and in Marshall v.
City of New York, et al., 10cv2714 (JBW) (VVP) (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that "their
expertise and level of skill... [warrants] compensating them at the high end of attorneys’
rates").
27.

Moreover, for the last three (3) years I have been recognized as a Rising

Star in Super Lawyers Magazine, an annual publication that acknowledges accomplished
practitioners, in the area of Civil Rights litigation.
28.

As a result of these achievements more experienced civil rights

practitioners, including Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq., Jon Depoala, Esq. and Jonathan Gleit,
Esq., routinely refer civil rights cases to my firm when they cannot handle a case due to
conflicts.
29.

Further, in May 2010 my firm filed a class action complaint against the City

of New York in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia, that the NYPD
has a pattern and practice of issuing summons to individuals without probable cause as a
result of its unlawful quota. On April 23, 2012 the Honorable Judge Robert Sweet
certified the class and found my civil rights experience to be adequate to represent the
class of potentially half a million New Yorkers. See Stinson et al. v. City of New York et
al., 2012 WL 1450553, 10 CV 4228 (RWS) (April 23, 2012). His decision to certify was
upheld on reconsideration, on interlocutory appeal by the Second Circuit and again when
the City's motion to decertify was denied on September 23, 2014.
30.

It should also be mentioned that defense counsel in Stinson – of all the

challenges they asserted in opposition to class certification under Rule 23 – never once
challenged my firm’s adequacy or competency in the area of civil rights litigation.
31.

Moreover, in Stinson, we are class co-counsel to the law firm of Quinn

Emmanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan LLP (hereinafter "Quinn"), one of the largest class
action law firms in the world. 5
32.

According to the New York Billing Survey, the lowest average billing rate

for the partners of Quinn, is eight hundred fifteen ($810), three hundred ten ($310) more
per hour than the partners of Cohen & Fitch LLP, which is abundant evidence of the
reasonableness of my firm's hourly rates.

5

Quinn joined the case only after we successfully had the case certified.

33.

In addition, in November 2014 my firm filed another action on behalf of a

class comprising of approximately ten thousand New Yorkers against the City of New
York in the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia, that the NYPD has a
pattern and practice of falsely arresting and prosecuting individuals for the possession of
legal folding knives under Penal Law Section 265.01(1) and 265.00(5). Plaintiffs' motion
for certification in Clay, et al. v. City of New York, et al., 14 CV 9171 (RMB)(KNF) is
currently pending before the Honorable Richard M. Berman.
34.

Further, I note that nearly three (3) years ago, on January 24, 2013, my

billing rates in the Eastern District, which is significantly less than that of the Southern
District Community, were approved at a rate of $325 dollars per hour in Marshall v.
Randall, 10 CV 2714.

In that decision, Judge Pohorelsky even recognized that

"Counsel’s reputations are not in dispute," which rendered the additional evidence of
their quality "unnecessary to the court’s recommendations." Id.
35.

Since that time I have tried nearly ten (10) additional federal cases and my

firm has appeared three (3) more Second Circuit appearances. After factoring this
additional experience, adjusting for inflation and the Southern District rates, I believe
$500 per hour is more than reasonable rate in this matter and are well in line with the
prevailing market rates in the community according to the National Law Journal’s Billing
Survey for 2013 and 2014. (Master Decl., Ex. Z).
36.

In matters involving claims of civil rights, I always work on a contingency

basis. None of my clients are ever asked to pay a cent of the litigation costs associated
with my firm's civil rights cases.
37.

My firm bears all of the costs for litigating our civil rights cases and absorbs

the advanced costs in all cases where there is no recovery. For example, from 2011
through 2015, while we were successful in six out of the eleven trials that went to verdict,
our firm absorbed over thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) in expenses in the five cases
that resulted in defense verdicts. See Nibbs v. Goulart, 10 CV 3799 (VM)(AJP); Jacquez
v. Gresko, 10 CV 9314 (JSR); Jackson v. City of New York 12 CV 1968 (WFK)(JO,
Carter v. City of New York, 11 CV 2899 (WFK)(VVP); Francois v. City of New York,11
CV 5874 (WFK)(VMS).
38.

Because of the high level of financial risk involved in civil rights litigation,

my firm depends on the availability of the full lodestar recovery in all the civil rights
cases in which we do prevail.
39.

I am compensated based on the portion of any judgment or settlement

obtained, or through attorney fee petitions. The instant matter is no different. I will be
compensated on the basis of the instant fee petition.
40.

Further, the reasonableness of Cohen & Fitch LLP's hourly rate is

exemplified by the December 31, 2013, National Law Journal’s most recent annual
survey of law firm hourly billing rates. 6 (Master Decl., Ex. Z). The lowest average
partner rate among New York firms reporting that figure is $640 per hour, and highest
average partner rates among New York firms reported in the survey range between $815
and $1800 per hour. 7 (Id.).

6

The survey does not cover all law firms, and it is well known that "'[t]hese numbers are probably an
underestimate given that many of the highest-billing national law firms decline to take part in
the National Law Journal Survey.'" Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 571 (2010)(Breyer
concurring)(citation omitted).
7
The survey is often used by federal courts to determine appropriate hourly rates. See, e.g., Skanga Energy
& Marine Ltd. v. Arevenca S.A., 2014 WL 2624762, *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co.,
Ltd. v. Government of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 2012 WL 5816878, *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2012);
Integrated Marketing v. JEC Nutrition, 2007 WL 840304 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2007); Banco Centrale
v. Paraguay Humanitarian Found., 2007 WL 747814 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2007); In re Merrill Lynch v.

41.

Moreover, as is the case with Mr. Norinsberg, Cohen & Fitch LLP are

currently co-counsel with Quinn Emmanuel in Stinson et al. v. City of New York, 10 Civ.
4228 (RWS). Therefore it is inconceivable that a rate of $500.00 per hour for the
partners of Cohen & Fitch LLP would be considered unreasonable when partners at
Quinn Emmanuel with as little as eight (8) years of litigation experience – three years
less than both Gerald Cohen and Joshua Fitch – are permissibly being billed at $810 per
hour. (Master Decl., Ex. Z). Thus, the billing rates of the partners of Cohen & Fitch LLP
are well within the range of rates charged by comparable law firms possessing
particularly specialized experience in their respective fields.
42.

Under the circumstances, and as discussed in the accompanying

memorandum of law, an hourly rate of $500 is reasonable for an attorney with eleven
(11) years of specialized experience in criminal law and civil rights litigation in the New
York Metropolitan area. It is the rate that I charge defendants whenever a civil rights
client accepts a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment or a favorable verdict is attained.
THE REQUESTED HOURLY RATE OF $500 IS REASONABLE
43.

This case proved to be a colossal undertaking from the very start occupying

and dominating much of my firms time ‒ some months requiring over 100 hours of time
devoted solely to this litigation. It was far beyond any non class action litigation that my
firm has ever handled.
44.

Indeed due to the magnitude of this case and the amount of time that was

necessary to devote to this litigation, client communication and management, my firm ‒
on several occasions over our three year representation ‒ had to forego representing

Research Securities Litig., 2007 WL 313474 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2007).

potential clients and other matters that we would have otherwise taken had we not been
so preoccupied with this particular case.
45.

Along with my partner, and co-counsel Jon Norinsberg, during the first two

years of this litigation, I participated in many aspects of all phases of this case, as
reflected on the contemporaneous time records attached as Exhibit B. In the early stages
of this litigation, I was involved with multiple meetings with plaintiff and his father,
reviewed the voluminous discovery, and navigated through many of the discovery
disputes as they arose throughout the litigation. I also created and maintained a website
dedicated to finding officers who could confirm plaintiff's claims of corruption
throughout the NYPD. As a result, I met with scores of other whistleblower police
officers in the NYPD that confirmed plaintiff's allegations. I also prepared Adrian
Schoolcraft for his initial deposition and attended the same. In addition, I assisted in
reviewing and revising the various motions that were made while we were the only
counsel in this case. I also orally argued the opposition to defendants motion to quash the
subpoena's made by plaintiff.
46.

Plaintiff terminated our relationship at the end of 2012 and hired new

counsel. However, when this case finally became trial ready in early 2015, we were
rehired and I assisted plaintiff's composite trial team, which included my firm, Jon
Norinsberg, Nat Smith, and John Lenoir in preparing and submitting the pre-trial
submissions, including the joint pre-trial order, and motions in limine.
47.

Thereafter, along with my co-counsels, I engaged extensive trial

preparation, which included reviewing the voluminous records, recordings, and
documents in this case. Specifically, I spent a significant amount of time analyzing the

depositions, preparing and organizing trial binders and other materials for trial, and
drafting detailed outlines for the examinations of more than 10 (ten) witnesses (including
plaintiff) I was expected to question at trial. I also worked diligently with co-trial
counsels to formulate a coherent theory of the case and reviewed their draft witness
examinations to make sure we were all consistent.
48.

My contemporaneous time records, attached to the Master Declaration as

Exhibit K, reflect my time from June 18, 2010, through September 16, 2015, the date of
Rule 68 offer.
49.

As indicated in the contemporaneous time records, the work I performed

included the following, for which plaintiff seeks to recover his costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees:
•

Researched the facts and circumstances of the case;

•

Drafted and edited the Federal Complaint;

•

Designed and launched www.schoolcraftjustice.com to elicit help
from other police officers who could confirm plaintiff's
whistleblower allegations;

•

Coordinated and managed the information initially disseminated
and gathered from news and media outlets regarding plaintiff's
incident, the lawsuit and the initial progress of the litigation,
including obtaining information an evidence from those same
media outlets;

•

Met with scores of former and current NYPD officers who
provided valuable information, and offered to be witnesses at trial;

•

Met with and spoke to Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Eastern
District on several occasions regarding their investigation into
plaintiff's claims and corruption/misconduct within the NYPD;

•

Met with and spoke to Assistant District Attorneys at the Queens
County office regarding their investigation into plaintiff's claims of
what occurred on October 31, 2009;

•

Assisted in making motions to add claims to amend Complaint;

•

Met with plaintiff and his father several times over the course of
litigation;

•

Listened to audio recordings of role calls and meetings attended by
Adrian Schoolcraft;

•

Reviewed the NYPD records, including the IAB files, QAD files,
and IAB recordings;

•

Helped draft, review and organize the information provided to
defendants in plaintiff's initial disclosures;

•

Assisted in drafting, reviewing and editing initial discovery
demands, request to admit and interrogatories;

•

Assisted in responding to demands and interrogatories on behalf of
plaintiff provided to defendants;

•

Helped negotiate finalize and approve the confidentiality
stipulation governing the initial exchange of information and
discovery in this case;

•

Reviewed Adrian Schoolcraft's medical records, including from
the NYPD Medical Division, Psychiatric Services, Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center, Forrest Hills, and Dr. Roy Lubbit;

•

Assisted in litigating numerous discovery disputes;

•

Attended numerous court appearances to argue motions and to
attend pre-trial conferences;

•

Travelled upstate on several occasions for full day meetings with
plaintiff, and father, Larry Schoolcraft;

•

Prepared Adrian Schoolcraft for initial deposition and attended the
same;

•

Assisted in preparing and submitting the pre-trial submissions,
including the joint pre-trial order, and motions in limine;

•

Reviewed the numerous depositions, including exhibits, taken by
Nat Smith and his colleagues in preparation for trial;

•

Reviewed the Summary Judgment motions filed by all parties and

the Court's decision on same;
•

•

Drafted detailed outlines for the cross examinations of nine (9)
NYPD witnesses;

•

Drafted a detailed direct examination outline for plaintiff and
diligently worked with plaintiff and co-counsel to update and
revise the outline;

•

Engaged in numerous phone calls with Adrian Schoolcraft
regarding this case and ultimately in prepping for trial;

•

50.

Analyzed the full discovery record, prepared and organized trial
binders and other materials for trial;

Prepared for trial with plaintiff's team of attorneys, divided
tasks, and coordinated presentations with theory of the case;

Based upon the attached contemporaneous time records, I have incurred

$403,350.00 in attorney’s fees on plaintiff’s behalf for the work I performed as of the
date of the verdict, which represents 806.70 hours at an hourly rate of $500.00. (Master
Decl., Ex. K).
51.

Additionally, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, plaintiff seeks an award of

reasonable out-of-pocket costs expended in connection with this matter. (Id.). Such costs
are of the type routinely billed by attorneys to fee-paying clients, and were actual and
necessary costs incurred to prosecute this case. As a prevailing party, plaintiff is entitled
to recover such expenses. The total out-of-pocket expenses are $ 3,800.00 (Id.).
Conclusion
52.

Defendants waited to the eve of trial before they finally made an offer that

would compensate plaintiff for his losses. Accordingly, I along with the entirety of
plaintiff's team logged the hours necessary to represent our client successfully and
provide the credible threat of trial.

53.

In sum, all of the time I expended was reasonable and necessary to properly

represent plaintiff. On his behalf, I submit that he should be awarded costs and attorneys’
fees totaling $407,150.00.
Dated: New York, New York
December 16, 2014
S/
Gerald M. Cohen