Order | Filed: September 01, 2026
| Entered: September 01, 2026
The Upstate New York Engineers Pension Fund, et al v. American Iron & Crane, Inc. et al
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | New York Northern
Judgment
JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' 30 Supplemental Response Requesting Additional Interest, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs. Pursuant to the Court's 29 Order directing Plaintiffs to determine the amount of pre-judgment interest that accumulated from November 13, 2025 through the date of the Court's Decision, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response calculated the pre-judgment interest due as $6,112.01. (Dkt. No. 30 , at 23). It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for $6,112.01 in pre-judgment interest is GRANTED. Because the Court previously awarded $2,901.13 in interest, the total amount of interest due to Plaintiffs is therefore $9,013.14. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 16; Dkt. No. 30 , at 3). Plaintiffs' 30 Supplemental Response also requests attorneys' fees and costs incurred since November 10, 2025, in addition to the attorneys' fees already awarded by the Court. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 19 (awarding $12,279.00 in fees for 39.6 hours of attorney and paralegal time, plus $1,638.30 in costs)). In support of their request, Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit from Plaintiffs' counsel Richard S. Siegel, ( 30 -1), as well as a Fees and Costs Report ( 30 -2), which provides an itemized list of time entries. As discussed in the Court's 29 Order, both the hourly rate and the number of hours expended must be reasonable. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 1617 (citing Stanczyk v. City of New York, 752 F.3d 273, 284 (2d Cir. 2014))). Plaintiffs' ( 30 -2) Fees and Costs Report contains narratives describing the work performed during each time entry, the date of the entry, and the attorney or paralegal that performed the work. (Dkt. No. 30 -2, at 23). Plaintiffs have calculated the fees based on the rates set forth in the Court's 29 Order, which are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 19). Plaintiffs request a total of 33.6 additional hours of attorney and paralegal time, which reflect time spent "reviewing Defendants' untimely Answer and considering the impact... on the then-pending Default Judgment Motion, corresponding with the Court on [the] same, opposing the Motion to Vacate, and preparing [the] Supplemental Response." (Dkt. No. 30 , at 4). Having considered the relevant factors, see Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 186 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court finds Plaintiffs' supporting documentation sufficient to show that the request for $11,734.50 in additional fees is reasonable. (See Dkt. No. 29 , at 18 (discussing the Arbor Hill factors, which include the amount involved in the case and the results obtained)). The request for addi... (truncated)
Order | Filed: September 01, 2026
| Entered: September 01, 2026
The Upstate New York Engineers Pension Fund, et al v. American Iron & Crane, Inc. et al
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | New York Northern
Order
TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' 30 Supplemental Response Requesting Additional Interest, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs. Pursuant to the Court's 29 Order directing Plaintiffs to determine the amount of pre-judgment interest that accumulated from November 13, 2025 through the date of the Court's Decision, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response calculated the pre-judgment interest due as $6,112.01. (Dkt. No. 30 , at 23). It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for $6,112.01 in pre-judgment interest is GRANTED. Because the Court previously awarded $2,901.13 in interest, the total amount of interest due to Plaintiffs is therefore $9,013.14. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 16; Dkt. No. 30 , at 3). Plaintiffs' 30 Supplemental Response also requests attorneys' fees and costs incurred since November 10, 2025, in addition to the attorneys' fees already awarded by the Court. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 19 (awarding $12,279.00 in fees for 39.6 hours of attorney and paralegal time, plus $1,638.30 in costs)). In support of their request, Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit from Plaintiffs' counsel Richard S. Siegel, ( 30 -1), as well as a Fees and Costs Report ( 30 -2), which provides an itemized list of time entries. As discussed in the Court's 29 Order, both the hourly rate and the number of hours expended must be reasonable. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 1617 (citing Stanczyk v. City of New York, 752 F.3d 273, 284 (2d Cir. 2014))). Plaintiffs' ( 30 -2) Fees and Costs Report contains narratives describing the work performed during each time entry, the date of the entry, and the attorney or paralegal that performed the work. (Dkt. No. 30 -2, at 23). Plaintiffs have calculated the fees based on the rates set forth in the Court's 29 Order, which are reasonable. (Dkt. No. 29 , at 19). Plaintiffs request a total of 33.6 additional hours of attorney and paralegal time, which reflect time spent "reviewing Defendants' untimely Answer and considering the impact... on the then-pending Default Judgment Motion, corresponding with the Court on [the] same, opposing the Motion to Vacate, and preparing [the] Supplemental Response." (Dkt. No. 30 , at 4). Having considered the relevant factors, see Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 186 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008), the Court finds Plaintiffs' supporting documentation sufficient to show that the request for $11,734.50 in additional fees is reasonable. (See Dkt. No. 29 , at 18 (discussing t... (truncated)