Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Although the note secured by the mortgage included a provision requiring the mortgagors to pay counsel fees of 15% of all sums due in the event that the note was subject to collection, the appellant is not entitled to such a fee as a matter of law as this provision was not included in the mortgage instrument itself (see, Vardy Holding Co. v. Metric Resales, 131 A.D.2d 564; Lipton v. Specter, 96 A.D.2d 549; see generally, 2 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 26.01). Rather, the court correctly determined that the appellant was entitled to an award of legal fees on a quantum meruit basis, reflecting the reasonable value of the legal services provided by his attorney (see, Chelsea/22 Assocs. v. Fleissner, 150 A.D.2d 212; see, e.g., Bankers Fed. Sav. Bank v. Off W. Broadway Developers, 224 A.D.2d 376). The court providently exercised its discretion in its award of counsel fees, which was rendered after a hearing before a Referee.
We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.