Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

470 F.2d 283

Docket No. 118, Docket 72-1675.

In re Borgenicht

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Nov. 1, 1972.

Decided Dec. 1, 1972.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1972-12-01

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1983

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hudson Manhattan Railroad Company · In the Matter of the Wal-Feld Company Inc Goldman & Frier Attorneys for Trustee · In re General Economics Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1972-12-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*284Elliot L. Krause, New York City (Leinwand, Marón, Hendler & Krause, New York City, on the brief), for debtor-appellant.

¶2Michael S. Landes, New York City (Hahn, Hessen, Margolis & Ryan, Julius J. Abeson, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before LUMBARD, FEINBERG and OAKES, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5Jack Borgenicht, a Chapter XI debtor, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Morris E. Lasker, J., approving an allowance of $20,000 to the attorneys representing the creditors’ committee. The issue raised on appeal is whether the allowance was reasonable, as both the referee and the district judge found.

¶6 We decline to reach that question. It is true that the services rendered by the attorneys appear to have been sizeable and the referee characterized the application for $20,000 as “quite restrained.” Nevertheless, the petition for allowance contained only an estimate of time spent (300 hours) and did not include time records of any kind. We have warned that mere estimates are not enough in an application for an allowance, and we have repeatedly requested attorneys to maintain and furnish time records in support of such applications. See, e. g., In re General Economics Corp., 360 F.2d 762, 765 (2d Cir. 1966); In re Wal-Feld Co., 345 F.2d 676, 677 (2d Cir. 1965); In re Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 339 F.2d 114, 115 (2d Cir. 1964). And nothing that we said in In re Nazareth Fair Grounds & Farmers Market, Inc., 374 F.2d 595 (2d Cir. 1967), was intended to detract from our prior warnings. The failure of appellee here to keep proper records indicates that some other course may be required to obtain compliance with what we regard as a desirable practice. However, it is not necessary to consider that possibility in this case. We were informed at oral argument that appellee can substantially reconstruct accurate time records. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court to allow (1) submission of such records to it or to the referee and (2) reconsideration of the award upon the fuller record.1

¶7Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

/470/f2d/283 · .json · Public domain