H.T.O. Architect, PLLC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re:
H.T.O. ARCHITECT, PLLC,
Debtor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Case No. 19-10915 (MG)
Chapter 7
MEMORANDUM OPINION OVERRULING OBJECTION AND APPROVING
TFR AND FEE APPLICATIONS
MARTIN GLENN
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Pending before the Court is the Trustee’s Final Report (the “TFR,” ECF Doc. #
154) filed by Angela Tese-Milner, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the “Trustee”) for the estate of
H.T.O. Architect, PLLC (the “Debtor”). The TFR includes (i) the Trustee’s application
for payment of commissions (the “Trustee’s Commission,” ECF Doc. # 154-3), (ii) the
first and final fee application of the Trustee’s counsel Cullen and Dykman LLP (“C&D”)
(the “C&D Application,” ECF Doc. # 154-4), and (iii) the first and final fee application
of the Trustee’s accountant Gary R. Lampert, CPA (“Lampert”) (the “Lampert
Application,” ECF Doc. # 154-5, and collectively with the Trustee’s Commission and
C&D Application, the “Fee Applications”). Annexed as Exhibit 2 to the TFR is the
Trustee’s Narrative in Support of Her Final Report (the “Trustee’s Narrative,” ECF Doc.
# 154-2).
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 1 of 14

2
The fees and expenses requested in the Fee Applications presently before the
Court are summarized below1 :
Application Fees
Requested
Interim Fees
Paid to Date
Expenses
Requested
Interim
Expenses
Paid to
Date
Trustee’s
Commission $21,131.69 	$0.00 	$0.00 	$0.00
C&D
Application $133,566.00 	$0.00 	$3,827.97 	$0.00
Lampert
Application $28,492.00 	$0.00 	$331.80 	$0.00
The objection deadline was January 24, 2022. (See ECF Doc. # 155.) A former
employee of the Debtor filed a timely objection to the TFR (“Objection,” ECF Doc. #
157), and the Trustee filed a response (“Response,” ECF Doc. # 158). The Objection
characterizes the Trustee’s proposed distribution as a “settlement” to which he objects,
arguing that the priority claim of the New York State Department of Labor should be
paid in full. (Objection at 1.) But there is no “settlement” here; rather, the Trustee
proposes to pay all claims according to the priorities set forth in the Bankruptcy Code.
Unfortunately, after payment of secured claims and administrative expenses, there is only
a small amount available for a pro rata distribution to priority claimants.
1 	A final fee application by special litigation counsel, McGrail & Benzinger LLP, in the amount of
$37,372.00 for fees and $715.47 for expenses, was previously approved in an Order dated November 2,
2021. (See ECF Doc. # 153.)
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 2 of 14

3
Therefore, for the reasons provided below, the Objection is OVERRULED and
the TFR and Fee Applications are APPROVED to the extent provided herein.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	General Case Background
On March 28, 2019, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code. (TFR ¶ 1.) On January 10, 2020, the case was converted to
a case under chapter 7. (Id.) Jill Mazer-Marino was initially appointed as the trustee (the
“Predecessor Trustee”), and, after the Predecessor Trustee resigned, the Trustee was
appointed as successor trustee on October 29, 2020. (Trustee’s Narrative ¶ 1; C&D
Application ¶ 8.)
Upon the application of the Predecessor Trustee and by order entered January 27,
2020 (ECF Doc. # 47), this Court authorized the Predecessor Trustee to retain and
employ C&D as general counsel to the Predecessor Trustee, effective as of January 13,
2020. (C&D Application ¶ 7.) After the Trustee was appointed as successor Trustee, an
amended retention order was entered to reflect that C&D was retained as general counsel
to the Trustee, effective as of October 29, 2020. (ECF Doc. # 110.)
On January 27, 2020, the Court entered an order approving the employment of
Lampert as the Predecessor Trustee’s accountant, effective as of January 23, 2020. (ECF
Doc. # 48.) On April 6, 2021, an amended order was entered to approve Lampert as
accountant to the Trustee, effective as of October 29, 2020. (ECF Doc. # 111.)
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 3 of 14

4
B. 	The TFR
As of November 23, 2021, the Trustee had collected total funds of $359,633.73.
(TFR ¶ 4.) Of this amount, approximately $290,000 was recovered as avoidable transfers
for the benefit of the Debtor’s estate. (C&D Application ¶ 13.) The Trustee has
disbursed funds totaling $4,442.49 for certain administrative expenses and bank service
fees, leaving a balance of $355,191.24 for disbursement. (TFR ¶ 4.) The Trustee states
that after paying chapter 7 administrative expenses and secured claims, there are
insufficient funds to pay chapter 11 administrative expenses and priority claims in full.
(Trustee’s Narrative ¶ 3.) Therefore, general unsecured creditors will not receive a
distribution. (Id.) The Trustee further explains that the Debtor’s estate would have been
administratively insolvent were it not for the successful efforts of the Trustee and the
retained professionals. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
C. 	The Objection and Response
On January 19, 2022, a former employee of the Debtor filed the Objection
requesting that the Court “amend the proposed settlement in favor of paying the full
claims of the” New York State Department of Labor. (Objection at 1.) The former
employee states that he was “the victim of the unscrupulous and rapacious labor practices
HTO engaged in” including “the practice of knowingly and deliberately failing to vest
employee contributions to their 401k program.” (Id.) The Objection further states that
the New York State Department of Labor investigated the labor violation claims and
found them credible and widespread, and it would be in the interest of justice to support
the New York State Department of Labor. (Id.)
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 4 of 14

5
In its Response, the Trustee states that she seeks to pay the New York State
Department of Labor in full on its filed administrative expense, in the amount of
$6,083.06. (Response ¶¶ 7, 8; see also TFR at 18.) The Trustee also states that she will
provide a partial payment on the New York State Department of Labor’s priority claim
for unemployment contributions that is pari passu with other filed and allowed priority
claims. (Response ¶ 8.) The TFR provides that the New York State Department of Labor
has (i) an allowed priority claim (Claim No. 13) of $12,260.55, with a proposed payment
is $429.52, and (ii) an allowed priority claim (Claim No. 10) of $4,656.75, with a
proposed payment of $163.14. (TFR at 18.) The Trustee asserts that she is not able, and
there is no basis, for paying the New York State Department of Labor the full amount of
its filed priority claim because other priority claims, including those filed by the New
York State Department of Taxation and Finance and the U.S. Department of Treasury,
exceed $1 million. (Response ¶ 8.) The Trustee also points out that the New York State
Department of Labor did not object to the proposed distribution in the TFR, and requests
that the Court overrule the Objection. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. 	The TFR Correctly Proposes Payments to Creditors Consistent with
the Priorities Provided in the Bankruptcy Code
Exhibit D to the TFR shows that the Trustee is holding a balance of $355,191.24
in the estate. (TFR, Ex. D.) That exhibit details the proposed payments for secured
claims, administrative expenses, and priority claims. Distributions will be made as
follows: allowed secured claims – $27,375.00 (leaving a balance in the estate of
$327,816.24); allowed administrative expenses in this chapter 7 case – $227,433.73
(leaving a balance in the estate of $100,382.51); allowed administrative expenses from
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 5 of 14

6
the chapter 11 case before this case was converted to chapter 7 – $55,416.29 (leaving a
balance available for distribution for priority claims of $44,966.22). (Id.) The total of
allowed priority claims is $1,185,989.16, which will be paid pari passu. (Id.) The two
allowed priority claims of the New York State Department of Labor total $16,917.30, but
because of the shortfall in funds available for distribution to priority creditors, the New
York State Department of Labor will only receive a total of $592.66. (Id.) The New
York State Department of Labor’s allowed priority claims are entitled to the same
treatment as the other priority claims. The Objection provides no rationale why the New
York State Department of Labor is entitled to better treatment than other priority
claimants.
B. 	The Trustee’s Fees
Section 326(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
In a case under chapter 7 or 11, other than a case under
subchapter V of chapter 11, the court may allow reasonable
compensation under section 330 of this title of the trustee for
the trustee’s services, payable after the trustee renders such
services, not to exceed 25 percent on the first $5,000 or less,
10 percent on any amount in excess of $5,000 but not in
excess of $50,000, 5 percent on any amount in excess of
$50,000 but not in excess of $1,000,000, and reasonable
compensation not to exceed 3 percent of such moneys in
excess of $1,000,000, upon all moneys disbursed or turned
over in the case by the trustee to parties in interest, excluding
the debtor, but including holders of secured claims.
11 U.S.C. § 326(a).
Before the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
(“BAPCA”), chapter 7 trustee compensation under section 326(a) was subject to the same
reasonableness review as other professionals under section 330(a)(3). COLLIER ON
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 6 of 14

7
BANKRUPTCY ¶ 330.02[1][a] (Richard Levin & Henry J. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2022).
After passage of BAPCPA, section 330(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code commands that:
In determining the amount of reasonable compensation to be
awarded to a trustee, the court shall treat compensation as a
commission, based on section 326.
11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(7).
The majority of courts consider a chapter 7 trustee’s fee calculated in compliance
with section 326(a) presumptively reasonable and only subject to reduction in “rare
instances.” In re JFK Capital Holdings, L.L.C., 880 F.3d 747, 753 (5th Cir. 2018);
Mohns, Inc. v. Lanser, 522 B.R. 594, 601 (E.D. Wis.), aff’d sub nom. In re Wilson, 796
F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2015). Reaching this conclusion, courts consider that “[i]n removing
Chapter 7 trustees from § 330(a)(3) and directing courts to treat the trustee’s
compensation as a commission, Congress made clear that a trustee’s compensation
should be determined on the basis of a percentage, rather than on a factor-based
assessment of the trustee’s services.” Mohns, 522 B.R. at 599. Therefore, section
330(a)(7) is “best understood as a directive to simply apply the formula of § 326 in every
case.” Id.
Courts acknowledge that extraordinary circumstances may justify the reduction of
a chapter 7 trustee commission calculated under section 326(a) on a case-by-case basis. 3
COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 326.02[1][a] (16th ed. 2022); see In re Rowe, 750 F.3d 392,
397 (4th Cir. 2014) (“It suffices to say that, with these broad parameters providing
guidance, the bankruptcy courts will be required to make the determination of whether
extraordinary circumstances exist in a Chapter 7 action on a case-by-case basis.”).
Extraordinary circumstances “include situations such as where the trustee’s case
administration falls below acceptable standards or where it appears a trustee has
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 7 of 14

8
delegated a substantial portion of his or her duties to an attorney or other professional.”
In re Rowe, 750 F.3d at 397 (quoting 2 U.S. Trustee, Handbook for Chapter 7 Trustees
Ch. 2–1. at 39 (Apr. 2012)).
C. 	Professional Fees
The court may award fees to professionals under section 330 of the Bankruptcy
Code. Section 330 provides in relevant part:
After notice to the parties in interest and the United States
Trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326, 328 and
329, the court may award . . .
(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services
rendered 	by 	the 	trustee, 	examiner, 	ombudsman,
professional 	person, 	or 	attorney 	and 	by 	any
paraprofessional person employed by any such person;
and
(B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.
11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1).
Whether services are necessary is determined from the perspective of the time at
which the services were rendered. 3 C OLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 330.03[1][b][iii] (16th
ed. 2022). Services are “necessary” if they benefit the estate. In re Keene Corp., 205
B.R. 690, 696 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997). The test considers whether services provided
were “reasonably likely to benefit the estate” and is objective, asking “what services a
reasonable lawyer or legal firm would have performed in the same circumstances.” In re
Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 76 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by
Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (2004) (citing In the Matter of Taxman Clothing Co., 49
F.3d 310, 315 (7th Cir.1995)). The court “may reduce or disallow a request if the
underlying services conferred no real benefit on the estate.” In re Keene Corp., 205 B.R.
at 696. The court may also reduce compensation if the request is based on incomplete or
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 8 of 14

9
inaccurate time records. See In re Hamilton Hardware Co., 11 B.R. 326, 330 (Bankr.
E.D. Mich. 1981) (denying an application seeking additional attorney’s fees where the
“time records submitted by counsel [did] not meet test of adequacy”).
Courts may award fees for time spent preparing a fee application “based on the
level and skill reasonably required to prepare the application.” 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(6). “It
is proper . . . for the bankruptcy court to examine the amount and value of the time spent
preparing the [fee] application, and reasonable limits may be placed on compensation for
such work.” In re Mesa Air Grp., Inc., 449 B.R. 441, 445 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011)
(quoting In re Bennett Funding Grp., Inc., 213 B.R. 234, 249 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1997)).
While there is no clear-cut cap on the permissible amount charged for the preparation of
fee applications, “the 3–5% range is a useful metric.” In re Mesa Air Grp., Inc., 449 B.R.
at 445.
Fee applications must also comply with Bankruptcy Rule 2016, which requires “a
detailed statement of (1) the services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and
(2) the amounts requested.” FED. R. BANKR. P. 2016. Bankruptcy Rule 2016 also
requires disclosure of any payments previously made to the applicant and of the existence
of any compensation agreement between the applicant, their client and any third party
who will share the compensation. Id. In addition, fee applications must comply with the
Amended Guidelines for Fees and Disbursements for Professionals in Southern District
of New York Bankruptcy Cases (“General Order M-447,” available at
https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/m447.pdf). General Order M-447
requires certifications by the professional responsible for compliance with the Guidelines
that the fee application has been read, that the application and the fees therein comply
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 9 of 14

10
with the Guidelines, that the fees are billed at rates customary to the applicant and
generally accepted by the applicant’s clients and that the applicant does not make a profit
on the service provided. Id. at 5. General Order M-447 also establish maximums of
$0.10 per page for photocopies (or cost, whichever amount is lower); limits on meals to
$20 per person, and for meals earlier than 8:00 p.m., reimbursement only if there is an
additional 1 ½ hours of work expended after the dinner; and limits on overtime expenses
for non-professional and paraprofessional staff unless fully explained and justified, which
should include an indication that services were absolutely necessary. Id. at 6.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	The Objection Is Overruled
The Objection requests that the Court amend the proposed settlement in favor of
paying the New York State Department of Labor’s claims in full. But there is no
“settlement” here. Distributions will be made strictly in accordance with the Bankruptcy
Code priority scheme. The Trustee explains that, after paying the secured claims and
administrative expenses in full, there are insufficient funds to pay in full the priority
claims in this case. (Trustee’s Narrative ¶ 3; Response ¶ 8.) The TFR provides that the
New York State Department of Labor’s priority claims will receive payment that is
approximately 3.5% of the amount of its allowed claim, which is pari passu with the
recoveries for the similar priority claims of the New York State Department of Taxation
& Finance and the Department of the Treasury. (TFR at 18; Response ¶ 8.) These
proposed distributions comply with section 726(b) of the Bankruptcy Code which “makes
clear that distribution to § 507 priority creditors shall be made pro rata amongst creditors
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 10 of 14

11
within the same priority tier.” In re Headlee Mgmt. Corp., 519 B.R. 452, 456 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2014); see also 11 U.S.C. 726(b).2
Therefore, the Objection is OVERRULED and the TFR is APPROVED.
B. 	The Trustee’s Commission Is Approved
The Trustee seeks approval of her first and final application for allowance and
payment of commissions pursuant to sections 326 and 330 of the Bankruptcy Code. The
Trustee has not received any payments for compensation or expenses previously in this
case. (Trustee’s Commission at 1.) The Trustee seeks a commission of $21,231.69 and
$0.00 in expenses. The Trustee calculated her commission pursuant to section 326(a) of
the Bankruptcy Code as follows:
2 	11 U.S.C. 726(b) provides:
(b) Payment on claims of a kind specified in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6),
(7), (8), (9), or (10) of section 507(a) of this title, or in paragraph (2), (3), (4), or
(5) of subsection (a) of this section, shall be made pro rata among claims of the
kind specified in each such particular paragraph, except that in a case that has
been converted to this chapter under section 1112, 1208, or 1307 of this title, a
claim allowed under section 503(b) of this title incurred under this chapter after
such conversion has priority over a claim allowed under section 503(b) of this title
incurred under any other chapter of this title or under this chapter before such
conversion and over any expenses of a custodian superseded under section 543 of
this title.
11 U.S.C. § 726.
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 11 of 14

12
(Id.)
The Trustee, upon her appointment, continued to prosecute and commence
fraudulent conveyance and preference actions against entities which received voidable
payments; this led to the estate recovering more than $355,000. (Trustee’s Narrative ¶ 2.)
The Trustee seeks a commission within the limits of section 326(a). Therefore, the
Trustee’s Commission is APPROVED.
C. 	The C&D Application Is Approved
C&D makes its first and final application for the allowance and compensation for
professional fees in the amount of $133,566.00 and expenses in the amount of $3,827.97
for services rendered from January 13, 2020 through and including September 30, 2021.
(C&D Application ¶ 17.) C&D worked 327.40 hours in connection with this chapter 7
case at a blended hourly rate, excluding paralegals and other professionals, of $407.95.
(Id. at ¶ 20.) The total amount billed was $136,846.00; however, C&D voluntarily
agreed to reduce its fees in connection with preparing the C&D Application to $5,000,
which, in addition to an agreement to not charge for certain services, resulted in the total
fees requested being $133,566.00. (Id. at ¶ 14.) C&D also states that the $133,566.00
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 12 of 14

13
does not include fees incurred for over 10 hours of services (or $3,300) performed for the
Trustee. (Id.) Additionally, C&D is not seeking fees incurred representing the
Predecessor Trustee in the amount of over $48,000. (Id. at ¶ 14 n.2.)
C&D’s time was divided into the following project categories: 22.8
hours/$5,120.50 for “General” (time spent reviewing and analyzing the Debtor’s books
and records, communications with the Trustee, and other miscellaneous tasks) (id. at ¶
24); 32.4 hours/$14,826.00 on Asset Analysis & Recovery (id. at ¶ 25); 6.0
hours/$2,663.00 on Asset Disposition (id. at ¶ 26); 15.0 hours/$6,710.50 on Case
Administration (id. at ¶ 27); 5.40 hours/$2,223.50 on Claims Administration and
Objections (id. at ¶ 28);14.2 hours/$5,858.00 on C&D and Other Retention Applications
(id. at ¶ 29); 18.4 hours/$5,000.00 on C&D/Other Fee Applications (id. at ¶¶ 30–31); and
213.10 hours/$91,164.50 on Litigation (id. at ¶¶ 32–34).
C&D seeks to recover $5,000 in fees for preparing its fee application, after its
voluntary reduction. (Id. at ¶¶ 30–31.) This amount represents approximately 3.74% of
the overall fees requested, which is within the 3–5% range of reasonableness. The time-
keeping records are detailed, with no block-billing or any other vague entries. The Court
finds and concludes that the time records show that the requested fees are both necessary
and reasonable. (C&D Application at 36–99.) Therefore, the fees requested by C&D are
APPROVED.
The C&D Application details the following expenses: $1,143.10 for copies;
$1,400.00 in Court Fees; $19.67 for Delivery Services/Messenger telephone; $111.47 for
online research; $1,008.73 on postage; and $145.00 on other expenses. (Id. at 34.)
Photocopies were appropriately charged at $0.10 per copy and overall the expenses
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 13 of 14

14
appear to be reasonable, necessary, and in compliance with all rules and guidelines. (Id.
at 101–02.) The expenses are APPROVED.
D. 	The Lampert Application Is Approved
Lampert makes his first and final application for the allowance and compensation
for professional fees in the amount of $28,492.00 and $331.80 in expenses for services
rendered from January 23, 2020 through September 28, 2021. (Lampert Application ¶ 8.)
Lampert spent 78.80 hours in professional services and 7.6 hours in paraprofessional
services at a blended hourly rate of $329.77. (Id. at 1.) Lampert’s time was broken up
into the following project categories: 73.1 hours on Analysis of Books and Records (id. at
¶¶ 13–17); 4.3 hours on Books and Records (id. at ¶¶ 18–19); 2.8 hours on Claims (id. at
¶ 20); and 6.2 hours on Other Services (id. at ¶¶ 21–22).
The Lampert Application includes time sheets for services rendered and the
descriptions of services provided are reasonable and sufficiently detailed. (Id. at 19–32.)
Also included is a description of the expenses requested which are made up of photocopy
charges at $0.10 per copy and pacer charges. (Id. at 32–35.)
Therefore, the Lampert Application for fees and expenses is APPROVED.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Objection is OVERRULED and the TFR and Fee
Applications are APPROVED.
A separate order approving the TFR and Fee Applications will be entered.
Dated: February 3, 2022
New York, New York
________Martin Glenn________
MARTIN GLENN
United States Bankruptcy Judge
19-10915-mg Doc 160 Filed 02/03/22 Entered 02/03/22 08:13:16 Main Document
Pg 14 of 14