Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 583

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated 02/08/2016 re: Reply to Opposition Letter Filed by Richard A. Gilbert on the Issue of Standing. Document filed by The City Of New York.(Scheiner, Alan)

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

ALAN H. SCHEINER
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

February 8, 2016
BY ECF & EMAIL
([e-mail])
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Schoolcraft v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, et al.
10-CV-6005 (RWS)
Your Honor:
I am a Senior Counsel in the office of Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, representing the motion respondent City of New York (the “City”), in
connection with the above-captioned matter.
The City submits this Reply in response to the letter of February 5, 2016, submitted on
behalf of Richard A. Gilbert, Harvey A. Levine and Peter J. Gleason (the “Attorney
Applicants”), Docket No. 580. The Attorney Applicants did not previously submit a letter
opposing the City’s application of January 28, 2016, so the City had not yet replied to them.
The Attorney Applicants’ letter leaves no doubt that they act solely on their own behalf,
as they explicitly state as much. See February 5, 2016 Letter from Richard A. Gilbert, Docket
No. 580, at 1 (“submits this letter on behalf of himself, his partner, Harvey A. Levine and Peter J.
Gleason, Esq.”); see also Notice of Motion, Docket No. 564 (stating that the Attorney Applicants
“move and will move this Court”). Contrary to the Attorney Applicants’ odd assertion that the
City cited no authority for its position that they have no standing, the City already cited the
Supreme Court’s decision in Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 87-88 (1990). See Jan. 28, 2016
Letter, at 3, Docket No. 576. As held by the Supreme Court, the fee statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988,
grants any entitlement to statutory fees to “the prevailing party,” not attorneys, and should any
other authority be needed the Second Circuit has repeatedly reaffirmed this point. See Soliman v.
Ebasco Services, Inc., 822 F.2d 320, 322-324 (2d Cir. 1987) (sanctioning counsel for appealing
denial of fees without authorization from plaintiff); Brown v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet

Sweet, J.
February 8, 2016
Page 2
Div., 722 F.2d 1009, 1011 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1983) (“[A] claim for such an award [of attorneys’ fees]
must itself be made by the party rather than the attorney. ”).
Accordingly, the Attorney Applicants’ fee application should be stricken.
We thank the Court for its consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

All counsel by ECF