14-3359-cv
Neroni v. Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 25th day of June, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 FREDERICK J. NERONI,
13 Plaintiff-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 14-3359-cv
16
17 HINMAN, HOWARD & KATTELL, LLP, LEVENE,
18 GOULDIN & THOMPSON, LLP, MARGARET
19 FOWLER,
20 Defendants-Appellees.*
21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
22
*
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend
the official caption in this case to conform with the
caption above.
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: Frederick J. Neroni, pro se,
2 Delhi, New York.
3
4 FOR APPELLEES: James S. Gleason, Hinman, Howard
5 & Kattell, LLP, Binghamton, New
6 York.
7
8 Robert A. Barrer, Barclay Damon,
9 LLP, Syracuse, New York.
10
11 Appeal from an order of the United States District
12 Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, J.).
13
14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
15 AND DECREED that the order of the district court be
16 AFFIRMED.
17
18 Frederick J. Neroni appeals from the order of the
19 United States District Court for the Northern District of
20 New York (Sharpe, J.), granting defendants’ motions for
21 attorneys’ fees and costs. We assume the parties’
22 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
23 history, and the issues presented for review.
24
25 “[W]e review a trial court’s decision whether to award
26 attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party, and in what amount,
27 under an abuse of discretion standard.” Haley v. Pataki,
28 106 F.3d 478, 481 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks
29 omitted). Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of
30 discretion and affirm the district court’s order for
31 substantially the reasons set forth in its thorough and
32 well-reasoned opinion.
33
34 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
35 Neroni’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the order of the
36 district court.
37
38 FOR THE COURT:
39 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
40
2