
    EVUNP Holdings LLC et al., Respondents, v Jacob Frydman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    [62 NYS3d 263]
   Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 20, 2016, in plaintiffs’ favor in the total sum of $29,658.43, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 2, 2015, which fixed the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs awarded to plaintiffs as $28,033.99, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the award vacated, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a hearing on the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, in conformance with this Court’s decision.

On a prior appeal, this Court affirmed an order which, to the extent appealed from, awarded plaintiffs their costs in replying to, and moving to strike, defendants’ defective motions (138 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2016]). At that time, this Court declined to consider defendants’ challenge to the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ fees, which had been awarded in a subsequent order, finding that “[w]hether the sum the court awarded was proper is not before us on this appeal” {id. at 607). We now determine the issue. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants’ appeal from the ensuing judgment, after issuance of the underlying order, is proper (see CPLR 5501 [a]; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

“ [T]he [trial] court . . . has the authority and responsibility to determine that the claim for fees is reasonable” (Solow Mgt. Corp. v Tanger, 19 AD3d 225, 226 [1st Dept 2005]). “[T]he burden of showing the ‘reasonableness’ of the fee lies upon the claimant” (Matter of Karp [Cooper], 145 AD2d 208, 216 [1st Dept 1989], citing Matter of Potts, 213 App Div 59, 61 [4th Dept 1925], affd 241 NY 593 [1925]).

Plaintiffs’ failure to address any of the Matter of Freeman (34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]) factors used to determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, other than time and labor, which was supported by invoices with block-billed entries, some of which contained redactions, warrants remand for a hearing (see S.T.A. Parking Corp. v Lancer Ins. Co., 128 AD3d 479, 480 [1st Dept 2015]; 135 E. 57th St., LLC v 57th St. Day Spa, LLC, 126 AD3d 471, 472 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kern, JJ.  