Breidbart v. Wiesenthal

117 A.D.3d 766, 985 N.Y.S.2d 719
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 117 A.D.3d 766 (Breidbart v. Wiesenthal) 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
Breidbart v. Wiesenthal, 117 A.D.3d 766, 985 N.Y.S.2d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel partnership accountings [767]*767and a distribution of partnership assets, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated May 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of nonparty Marshall G. Kaplan, the plaintiffs’ former attorney, to establish a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the sum of $81,354.52.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

An attorney discharged without cause may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655, 658 [1993]; Schultz v Hughes, 109 AD3d 895 [2013]). In fixing such an award, the court should consider evidence of the time and skill required in the case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney’s experience, ability and reputation, the client’s benefit derived from the services, and the fee usually charged by attorneys for similar services (see Angotta v Zelezny, 112 AD3d 570 [2013]; DeGregorio v Bender, 52 AD3d 645 [2008]; SO/Bluestar, LLC v Canarsie Hotel Corp., 33 AD3d 986 [2006]; Padilla v Sansivieri, 31 AD3d 64, 67 [2006]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the sum of $81,354.52 was a reasonable attorney’s fee (see NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v Stavrinos Realty Corp., 113 AD3d 602 [2014]; Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 67 AD3d 975 [2009]; Juste v New York City Tr. Auth., 5 AD3d 736 [2004]).

Dickerson, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Outeda v. Asensio
73 Misc. 3d 136(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Tucker v. Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C.
2021 NY Slip Op 04250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Sbc 2010-1, LLC v. Smits Structure Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 8522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Littleton v. Amberland Owners, Inc.
126 A.D.3d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 A.D.3d 766, 985 N.Y.S.2d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breidbart-v-wiesenthal-nyappdiv-2014.