Board of Managers of the Boro Park Village-Phase I Condominium v. Boro Park Townhouse Associates

284 A.D.2d 237, 726 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6544
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 237 (Board of Managers of the Boro Park Village-Phase I Condominium v. Boro Park Townhouse Associates) 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
Board of Managers of the Boro Park Village-Phase I Condominium v. Boro Park Townhouse Associates, 284 A.D.2d 237, 726 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered September 14, 2000, which, in a dispute between plaintiffs outgoing and incoming counsel as to the division of a contingency fee earned in a property damage action, confirmed the Special Referee’s report, dated June 23, 2000, finding that the outgoing attorneys were entitled to 45% of the $900,000 contingency fee, less $33,327 paid by the client, and that the incoming attorneys were entitled to the remainder, and denied the respective motions of the nonparty attorneys to disaffirm the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee correctly determined that, based upon an agreement between the outgoing and incoming attorneys regarding the division of legal fees, a number of factors should be considered in apportioning the fee, including the work performed, the amount recovered, the quality of services, the circumstances of the case, the contributions of the respective attorneys toward achieving the outcome and the time spent on the case (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d [238]*238454, 458; Ebrahimian v Long Is. R. R., 269 AD2d 488, 489). The Special Referee’s determination is substantiated by the record and, accordingly, should not be disturbed (see Freedman v Freedman, 211 AD2d 580; Warney v Haddad, 194 AD2d 478, lv denied 82 NY2d 658).

We have examined the incoming attorneys’ contentions on their cross appeal and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Hart v. Cappa
2025 NY Slip Op 05189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Money Ground, Inc. v. Eldridge St. Block Assn.
2025 NY Slip Op 31142(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Diakhite v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 3332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Alex M. Ex Rel. Gennaro M. v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 1982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
In re the Dissolution of Exterior Delite, Inc.
14 Misc. 3d 910 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Martin v. Feltingoff
7 A.D.3d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 237, 726 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-managers-of-the-boro-park-village-phase-i-condominium-v-boro-park-nyappdiv-2001.