The opinion
Starwood Prop. Mtge. Sub-2, L.L.C. v Stalcup
2026 NY Slip Op 30869(U)
March 9, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 653317/2025
Judge: Anar R. Patel
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.6533172025.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/17/2026 3:45:50 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 653317/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 45
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
STARWOOD PROPERTY MORTGAGE SUB-2, INDEX NO. 653317/2025
L.L.C.
MOTION
Plaintiff, DATE 05/30/2025
-v- MOTION SEQ.
ALAN STALCUP, NO. 001
Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
+ ORDER ON MOTION
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANAR RATHOD PATEL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 001) 2,
18, 19, 22–41, 43–48, 49–52, 54, 55 were read on this motion to/for ATTORNEYS’ FEES.
Relevant Factual and Procedural History
By Decision and Order dated January 5, 2026, the Court (i) granted Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment in lieu of complaint; (ii) ordered a judgment against Defendant in favor of
Plaintiff in the principal sum of $7,856,016.55 with interest at the contractual rate; and (iii) ordered
that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements as provided
in the loan documents. NYSCEF Doc. No. 41.
Plaintiff timely submitted papers on January 12, 2026, via the Affirmation of Elinor H.
Murarova (“Murarova Aff.”), an attorney at Duane Morris LLP, which summarizes the services
her firm rendered in connection with the enforcement of the Mezzanine Recourse Guaranty
(“Guaranty”) and Loan Agreement. NYSCEF Doc. No. 44. Plaintiff seeks to recover attorneys’
fees and costs in the total amount of $103,238.69 (consisting of $102,119.00 in attorneys’ fees and
$1,119.69 in costs). Id. Plaintiff attached the following exhibits to the Murarova Aff.: (i) Exhibit
A, combined invoices regarding enforcement of the Guaranty showing a total sum of fees in the
amount of $103,238.69 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45) and (ii) Exhibit B, combined attorney biographies
of attorneys who worked on this case. NYSCEF Doc. No. 46.
Defendant filed a letter in opposition arguing that Plaintiff is not entitled to the full amount
of fees sought under the Guaranty and Loan Agreement. NYSCEF Doc. No. 48. Specifically,
Defendant asserts that (i) Plaintiff charged unreasonable non-attorney billing rates; (ii) Plaintiff’s
submissions contained excessive redactions; (iii) Plaintiff’s submissions contain pervasive block
billing; and (iv) Plaintiff’s submissions are impermissibly vague. Id. Accordingly, Defendant
653317/2025 STARWOOD PROPERTY MORTGAGE SUB-2, L.L.C. vs. STALCUP, ALAN Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 001
1 of 4
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 653317/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
requests a hearing on the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and to reduce said fees by
40%. Id.
Plaintiff requested leave to file a reply to Defendant’s opposition (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52),
which the Court granted. NYSCEF Doc. No. 53. In the Reply, Plaintiff argues that (i) non-attorney
billing rates are not capped at $200 per hour; (ii) Plaintiff’s redactions and narratives do not warrant
a reduction of fees; (iii) Plaintiff did not engage in block billing nor would same warrant a
reduction of fees; (iv) Plaintiff’s invoice records are not vague; and (v) there are no grounds for an
across-the-board reduction of fees. Id.
Legal Analysis
Attorneys’ fees are merely an incident of litigation and thus are not recoverable absent a
specific contractual provision or statutory authority. Hooper Associates, Ltd. v. AGS Computers,
Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487, 491 (1989). The reasonableness of legal fees “can be determined only after
consideration of the difficulty of the issues and the skill required to resolve them; the lawyers’
experience, ability and reputation; the time and labor required; the amount involved and benefit
resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee charges for similar services; the
contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained and the responsibility involved.”
Morgan & Finnegan v. Howe Chem. Co., Inc., 210 A.D.2d 62, 63 (1st Dept. 1994) (internal
citations omitted). An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees is within the sound discretion of the
court. JK Two LLC v. Garber, 171 A.D.3d 496, 496–97 (1st Dept. 2019).
Notably, Section 1.7 of the Guaranty provides, “in the event that Guarantor [Defendant]
should breach… this Guaranty, Guarantor shall…pay Lender [Plaintiff] all out of pocket costs and
expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees) actually incurred by Lender in the
enforcement hereof or the preservation of Lender’s rights hereunder.” Guaranty at § 1.7. It is
undisputed that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees. Rather, Defendant challenges the
reasonableness of such fees. Upon review of the foregoing submissions, and in light of the
standards set forth herein, the Court finds that the amounts sought are not entirely reasonable.
With respect to non-attorney billing rates, Defendant argues non-attorney billing rates are
generally limited to $200 per hour (1979 Fam. Tr. Licensor, LLC v. Darji, 2020 WL 9596279, 19-
CV-4389 (VEC), at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020)), and that Plaintiff fails to provide details as to
the non-attorneys’ experience or credentials. Plaintiff rebuts that Defendant’s cited cases do not
reflect the prevailing market rate for comparable non-attorney services and that above-market non-
attorney rates are justified when “work in [the] case was unusually complex.” Themis Capital v.
Democratic Republic of Congo, 2014 WL 4379100, 09-CV-1652 (PAE), at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4,
2014). The Court declines to adopt a bright-line rule limiting non-attorney billing rates to $200
per hour as doing so would ignore non-attorney specialization, experience, and complexity of
services rendered. However, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff has failed to provide
sufficient information to substantiate non-attorney billing rates with non-attorneys’ experience and
credentials. Accordingly, the Court finds a reduction in the amount requested in attorneys’ fees is
both reasonable and appropriate.
Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s invoices are improperly redacted and vague so
as to prevent the Court from making an assessment as to the reasonableness of fees. Where a party
653317/2025 STARWOOD PROPERTY MORTGAGE SUB-2, L.L.C. vs. STALCUP, ALAN Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 001
2 of 4
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 653317/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
submits heavily redacted billing records in a fee application, courts may reduce fees. Taradek LLC
v. Shenzhen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd., 2025 WL 3227344, 20-CV-9170 (ER), at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
19, 2025). Here, Plaintiff has provided the Court with unredacted invoices, and the Court
determines that said redactions were properly applied based on privilege and/or relevance to this
guaranty action as opposed to the parallel foreclosure action. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 54 (Pl.
Reply) at 3. Therefore, the Court declines to reduce attorneys’ fees on this basis.
Regarding Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff’s invoices improperly contain block billing, “[t]he
Court may apply a reduction for the practice of ‘block billing,’ or ‘the aggregation of multiple
tasks into a single billing entry,’ which makes it difficult for the Court to isolate areas of excess.’”
Penzo v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 2024 WL 3966694, 19-CV-07478-MKV, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Aug 28, 2024) (quoting Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 104 F. Supp 3d 363
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2024)). Plaintiff argues that there is “no per se rule against block billing.”
Vista Outdoor Inc. v. Reeves Fam. Tr., 2018 WL 3104631, 16-Cv-5766, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 24,
2018). The Court agrees with Defendant that certain entries reflect block billing as said entries
aggregate multiple tasks into single billing entries the Court is unable to specifically identify the
amount of time spent on each task. For instance:
- On September 4, 2024, M. Patterson billed 2.80 hours to “Review senior loan
documents and mezzanine loan documents; begin drafts of notices of default and
reservation of rights to be sent to 1825 Parker Rd LLC, 1825 Parker Rd Mez LLC, and
Alan Stalcup, Guarantor [redacted]; revise same; further review and analysis
[redacted].” NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 at 2.
- On October 24, 2024, M. Patterson billed 1.70 hours to “Revise notice of additional
events of default, notice of recourse liabilities and springing recourse events, and
demand for payment under carry and recourse guaranties of the senior loan [redacted]
prepare clean/revised and redlined versions and [redacted].” NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 at
10.
- On May 2, 2025, A. Huskins billed 1.30 hours to “Locate and send prior materialmen’s
lien cancellations to co counsel for inclusion in new demand to guarantor on Mezzanine
loan and also sent to co counsel prior demand letter for mezzanine loan and work with
co counsel on acceleration letters and send additional prior letters to co counsel on new
potential claim against guarantor.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 45, at 36.
- On August 29, 2025, M. Bauer billed 1.70 hours to “Draft stipulation to extend
return/reply date: emails with E. Murarova re: [redacted]; finalize stipulations and
email same to Stalcup counsel; draft letter to Judge Patel re: request for adjournment;
file request for adjournment letter.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 at 63.
Therefore, the Court declines to award Plaintiff the full amount requested and exercises its
discretion to reduce the amount of attorneys’ fees ($102,119.00) by 5% to account for the
following: block billing and insufficient details of non-attorney credentials. As such, the Court
awards Plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $97,013.05 and costs in the amount of $1,119.69.
653317/2025 STARWOOD PROPERTY MORTGAGE SUB-2, L.L.C. vs. STALCUP, ALAN Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 001
3 of 4
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2026 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 653317/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2026
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses
(Motion 001) is GRANTED in part in the total amount of ninety-eight thousand one hundred thirty-
two and seventy-four cents ($98,132.74) (comprised of $97,013.05 in attorneys’ fees and
$1,119.69 in costs); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a supplemental judgment in favor
of the Plaintiff, Starwood Property Mortgage Sub-2, L.L.C., and against Defendant, Alan Stalcup,
in the sum of $98,132.74 for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
03/09/2026 $SIG$
DATE ANAR R. PATEL, A.J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
653317/2025 STARWOOD PROPERTY MORTGAGE SUB-2, L.L.C. vs. STALCUP, ALAN Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 001
4 of 4
[* 4]