Ben-Aroya v. Plotke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ben-Aroya v. Plotke

285 A.D.2d 482, 727 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347

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

DecidedJuly 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 482 (Ben-Aroya v. Plotke) 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

Ben-Aroya v. Plotke, 285 A.D.2d 482, 727 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Mergim Bazhdari appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 5, 2000, which awarded Felberbaum, Halbridge & Wirth 25% of the total attorney’s fee due from a settlement in the underlying personal injury action and an award in the related underinsured motorist arbitration proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in apportioning the attorney’s fee in this case (see, Ebrahimian v Long Is. R. R., 269 AD2d 488; Melvin v City of New York, 244 AD2d 390; Matter of Budin Reisman & Schwartz v Giamboi, Reiss & Squitieri, 224 AD2d 325). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Mergim Bazhdari appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 5, 2000, which awarded Felberbaum, Halbridge & Wirth 25% of the total attorney’s fee due from a settlement in the underlying personal injury action and an award in the related underinsured motorist arbitration proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in apportioning the attorney’s fee in this case (see, Ebrahimian v Long Is. R. R., 269 AD2d 488; Melvin v City of New York, 244 AD2d 390; Matter of Budin Reisman & Schwartz v Giamboi, Reiss & Squitieri, 224 AD2d 325). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 482, 727 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-aroya-v-plotke-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack