Albunio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Albunio v. City of New York

101 A.D.3d 656, 955 N.Y.2d 876

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 27, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 656 (Albunio v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albunio v. City of New York, 101 A.D.3d 656, 955 N.Y.2d 876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The broad terms of the contingency fee agreement providing for a fee of 33V3% of “the sum recovered, whether recovered by suit, settlement or otherwise,” unambiguously require that the [657]*657award of attorneys’ fees be included in “the sum recovered.” The cases cited by plaintiffs involve retainer agreements with narrower provisions (see e.g. Bates v Kuguenko, 100 F3d 961 [9th Cir 1996] [table; text at 1996 WL 654449, *1, 1996 US App LEXIS 29385, *2 (1996)] [contingency fee to be computed as percentage of “damages recovered”]). Nor does this State follow the rule found in certain federal statutes that contingency counsel must take the larger of the contingency fee or the statutory fee (see e.g. 1996 WL 654449, *1, 1996 US App LEXIS 29385, *3).

The parties’ wholly separate retainer agreements for the appeals to this Court and the Court of Appeals expressly set the statutory fees for the appeals apart from the statutory and contingency fees for the trial level work.

As the retainer letters are ambiguous as to the treatment of the retainer fees, they must be construed in favor of plaintiffs (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The broad terms of the contingency fee agreement providing for a fee of 33V3% of “the sum recovered, whether recovered by suit, settlement or otherwise,” unambiguously require that the [657]*657award of attorneys’ fees be included in “the sum recovered.” The cases cited by plaintiffs involve retainer agreements with narrower provisions (see e.g. Bates v Kuguenko, 100 F3d 961 [9th Cir 1996] [table; text at 1996 WL 654449, *1, 1996 US App LEXIS 29385, *2 (1996)] [contingency fee to be computed as percentage of “damages recovered”]). Nor does this State follow the rule found in certain federal statutes that contingency counsel must take the larger of the contingency fee or the statutory fee (see e.g. 1996 WL 654449, *1, 1996 US App LEXIS 29385, *3).

The parties’ wholly separate retainer agreements for the appeals to this Court and the Court of Appeals expressly set the statutory fees for the appeals apart from the statutory and contingency fees for the trial level work.

As the retainer letters are ambiguous as to the treatment of the retainer fees, they must be construed in favor of plaintiffs (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 656, 955 N.Y.2d 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albunio-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack