Boeggeman v. D'Arrigo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boeggeman v. D'Arrigo

88 A.D.2d 597, 450 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16776

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

DecidedMay 3, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 597 (Boeggeman v. D'Arrigo) 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

Boeggeman v. D'Arrigo, 88 A.D.2d 597, 450 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, petitioners appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), dated July 13,1981, as, upon their motion to fix and enforce an attorney’s lien in connection with the settlement of the underlying action, ordered that petitioners pay a stated forwarding fee to respondent. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine the services performed and responsibility assumed by each of the attorneys (see Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-107). By order dated January 20, 1981, Trial Term directed that a hearing be held relating to the dispute between the forwarding and the trial attorneys. The ensuing holding of a conference and the direction for submission of affirmations of services did not constitute such hearing. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, petitioners appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), dated July 13,1981, as, upon their motion to fix and enforce an attorney’s lien in connection with the settlement of the underlying action, ordered that petitioners pay a stated forwarding fee to respondent. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine the services performed and responsibility assumed by each of the attorneys (see Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-107). By order dated January 20, 1981, Trial Term directed that a hearing be held relating to the dispute between the forwarding and the trial attorneys. The ensuing holding of a conference and the direction for submission of affirmations of services did not constitute such hearing. Titone, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 597, 450 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boeggeman-v-darrigo-nyappdiv-1982.