Key Takeaway
Court rejects extraordinary attorney fees in no-fault case, finding issues weren't novel enough despite favorable outcome for plaintiff's counsel.
This article is part of our ongoing attorney fee coverage, with 16 published articles analyzing attorney fee issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Understanding Extraordinary Attorney Fee Claims in No-Fault Cases
When attorneys seek fees beyond the standard rates established by New York’s no-fault regulations, they must demonstrate that their case involved truly exceptional circumstances. The Appellate Term’s decision in A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. provides important guidance on what courts consider when evaluating claims for extraordinary attorney fees in post-judgment enforcement proceedings.
This case illustrates the high bar attorneys face when arguing their work deserves compensation above the regulated fee schedule. Even when counsel achieves a favorable outcome, courts scrutinize whether the legal issues were genuinely novel or complex enough to justify enhanced fees. The decision also highlights how attorney time records can work against extraordinary fee claims, particularly when attorney fee limitations are at stake.
Case Background
A.B. Medical Services, PLLC obtained a judgment against MVAIC and subsequently engaged in post-judgment enforcement litigation. The medical provider’s attorneys sought extraordinary attorney fees, arguing that the post-judgment issues they litigated were sufficiently novel and complex to warrant compensation exceeding the standard no-fault fee schedule.
The Civil Court denied the extraordinary fee application, and the attorneys appealed. The Appellate Term needed to determine whether the legal issues in the post-judgment enforcement proceedings qualified as sufficiently novel and unique to justify fees above the regulatory schedule, and whether 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(f) even applied to post-judgment litigation.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis
A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 50676(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2017)
(1) “Assuming without deciding that 11 NYCRR 65-4.6 (f), a no-fault regulation, could properly be applied to postjudgment enforcement litigation, such as that involved herein, we nonetheless agree with the Civil Court’s finding that the issues in dispute here were not so novel or unique as to require extraordinary skills or services warranting attorney’s fees in excess of those provided for in the no-fault regulations, regardless of the outcome obtained”
(2) “Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel’s own timesheets indicate that the attorneys involved spent less than two and a half hours on legal research on these allegedly “novel” issues.”
Legal Significance
The A.B. Medical Services decision establishes important parameters for extraordinary fee claims in no-fault litigation. The court makes clear that favorable outcomes alone do not justify fees above the regulatory schedule. Even when attorneys prevail on contested issues, they must demonstrate that the issues themselves were genuinely novel or uniquely complex. Routine litigation—even when skillfully conducted—does not warrant extraordinary compensation.
The decision’s reliance on counsel’s own time records is particularly instructive. When attorneys claim issues were so novel and complex that they required extraordinary skills, yet their time records show minimal research investment, courts will find such claims contradictory and unpersuasive. This creates a practical dilemma for attorneys: spending more time on research supports novelty claims but may not be economically rational if extraordinary fees are unlikely to be awarded.
The court’s equivocal statement—“assuming without deciding” that no-fault fee regulations apply to post-judgment enforcement—leaves an important question unresolved. This suggests potential future litigation about whether the regulatory fee schedule applies at all once judgment is entered. However, even if regulations don’t apply, courts retain inherent authority to determine reasonable fees based on traditional factors like novelty, complexity, time invested, and results achieved.
Practical Implications
For attorneys seeking extraordinary fees in no-fault cases, A.B. Medical Services counsels realistic assessment of whether issues truly merit enhanced compensation. Novel issues are those involving legal questions courts have not previously addressed or that require creative application of existing law to new circumstances. Merely developing good arguments on contested points does not make issues novel.
Attorneys should also recognize that time records can become evidence against extraordinary fee claims. If counsel claims issues were extraordinarily complex but records show minimal research time, courts will question whether the issues were really as difficult as claimed. Attorneys might consider whether to invest substantial research time upfront—creating a record supporting extraordinary fee claims—or accept that limited time investment undermines such claims.
The decision also warns against routine requests for extraordinary fees. When attorneys habitually seek enhanced compensation regardless of case specifics, courts become skeptical of all such requests. Better practice involves reserving extraordinary fee applications for cases genuinely presenting novel issues requiring exceptional skills or services.
Key Takeaway
Courts apply strict scrutiny to extraordinary attorney fee requests in no-fault cases, requiring genuine novelty and complexity rather than just favorable outcomes. Attorney time records can undermine claims of extraordinary work, as demonstrated when counsel spent minimal time researching supposedly novel issues. This decision reinforces that bonus attorneys fees require exceptional circumstances beyond routine litigation success.
Legal Update (February 2026): The attorney fee provisions in 11 NYCRR 65-4, including section 65-4.6 addressing extraordinary fee claims, may have been amended since this 2017 post was published. Fee schedules and the criteria for establishing extraordinary circumstances in no-fault cases are subject to periodic regulatory updates. Practitioners should verify current fee limitations and procedural requirements under the most recent versions of these regulations.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Attorney fee Analysis
Under an abuse of discretion standard, the Third DCA refuses to apply 65-4.6(e)
Third DCA refuses to apply NY no-fault regulation 65-4.6(e) under abuse of discretion standard in Advanced Physical Therapy v. Camrac case involving attorney fees.
Apr 28, 2021
Mallela – or was it?
Court distinguishes between Mallela defense and over-billing claims in no-fault insurance case, ruling that billing fraud doesn't qualify for extended defense timeline.
Dec 18, 2018
Attorneys fees on a DJ
Analysis of attorney fee recovery in New York declaratory judgment actions, examining when medical providers and insureds can recover legal costs in no-fault insurance disputes.
Dec 17, 2017
Attorney fee limitations
Court ruling clarifies that the 2014 attorney fee increase for no-fault insurance cases is not retroactive, supporting the $850 statutory maximum for pre-amendment cases.
Dec 22, 2016
Attorney fees for cases filed on or after February 4, 2015
New York attorney fee limitations for no-fault insurance cases filed after February 4, 2015, including arbitration rates and maximum fee caps per regulation 11 NYCRR 65-4.6.
Feb 12, 2015
Attorney Fee Requirements in New York No-Fault Insurance Cases
Learn about attorney fee requirements in New York no-fault insurance cases after Cornell Medical. Important billing compliance for NYC and LI attorneys. Call 516-750-0595.
May 29, 2009Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How are attorney fees awarded in no-fault cases?
Under 11 NYCRR §65-4.6, if a no-fault claimant prevails at arbitration or in court, the insurer may be required to pay attorney fees. The fee schedule is set by regulation — typically 20% of the first $2,000 recovered and 10% of amounts above that, with a minimum fee. These fees are separate from and in addition to the benefits recovered.
Can I recover attorney fees in a personal injury lawsuit?
In New York, each party typically pays their own attorney fees (the "American Rule"). Exceptions exist in certain statutory claims — for example, employment discrimination cases under federal or state law may include fee-shifting provisions. In personal injury cases, the attorney fee is usually a contingency percentage agreed upon with the client.
What is the fee schedule for no-fault arbitration?
The fee schedule under Regulation 68 (11 NYCRR §65-4.6) provides for a reasonable attorney fee based on the amount recovered. The schedule is designed to ensure claimants have access to legal representation while keeping fees proportional to the recovery. Disputes over the amount of attorney fees can be resolved by the arbitrator or court.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a attorney fee matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
