Alexander Potruch, P. C. v. Berson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander Potruch, P. C. v. Berson

261 A.D.2d 494, 688 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5460

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

DecidedMay 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 494 (Alexander Potruch, P. C. v. Berson) 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

Alexander Potruch, P. C. v. Berson, 261 A.D.2d 494, 688 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover legal fees, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated April 27, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it is not entitled to recover legal fees for services rendered in the respondent’s matrimonial action. The appellant failed to execute and file a written retainer agreement with the respondent setting forth in plain language the terms of the compensation and the nature of the services rendered after it was substituted as the respondent’s attorney (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106 [c] [2] [B] [22 NYCRR 1200.11 (c) (2) (ii); 1400.3]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover legal fees, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated April 27, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it is not entitled to recover legal fees for services rendered in the respondent’s matrimonial action. The appellant failed to execute and file a written retainer agreement with the respondent setting forth in plain language the terms of the compensation and the nature of the services rendered after it was substituted as the respondent’s attorney (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106 [c] [2] [B] [22 NYCRR 1200.11 (c) (2) (ii); 1400.3]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 494, 688 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-potruch-p-c-v-berson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack