Carr v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carr v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

289 A.D.2d 955, 735 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12492

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 955 (Carr v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.) 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

Carr v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 955, 735 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs retained Richard G. Vogt, P.C. (Vogt) to pursue a lawsuit against defendant, and Vogt commenced the action on July 16, 1997. On November 12, 1998, plaintiffs signed a retainer with Moran & Kufta, P.C. (Moran & Kufta). Vogt refused to turn over the file to Moran & Kufta until they reached an agreement on the apportionment of attorneys’ fees. When they were unable to agree upon an apportionment, Moran & Kufta brought a motion seeking 80% of the fees earned on a contingency basis. Supreme Court ordered that the attorneys’ fees would be divided on a contingency basis by the court at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ lawsuit. After the lawsuit was settled, Moran & Kufta made a motion for apportionment of attorneys’ fees. At the return date of the motion, the court scheduled a pretrial conference. Prior to the scheduled date, the court requested that each law firm submit an hourly itemization of the services rendered. Each firm submitted the requested information in a letter to the court. In a subsequent letter to the court, Moran & Kufta contested certain items included by Vogt. Vogt then responded thereto, stating, “We have no comments at this time concerning the list of services and time submitted by Moran & Kufta, leaving any such questions to time of trial or hearing.” Prior to the scheduled date of the pretrial conference, the court apportioned 80% of the attorneys’ fees to Moran & Kufta and 20% to Vogt. We conclude that on these facts a hearing is required in order to determine “the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel” (Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679, 680; see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458). Thus, we reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing before a different Justice to determine the proper [956]*956apportionment of attorneys’ fees. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Barry, J. — Counsel Fees.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs retained Richard G. Vogt, P.C. (Vogt) to pursue a lawsuit against defendant, and Vogt commenced the action on July 16, 1997. On November 12, 1998, plaintiffs signed a retainer with Moran & Kufta, P.C. (Moran & Kufta). Vogt refused to turn over the file to Moran & Kufta until they reached an agreement on the apportionment of attorneys’ fees. When they were unable to agree upon an apportionment, Moran & Kufta brought a motion seeking 80% of the fees earned on a contingency basis. Supreme Court ordered that the attorneys’ fees would be divided on a contingency basis by the court at the conclusion of plaintiffs’ lawsuit. After the lawsuit was settled, Moran & Kufta made a motion for apportionment of attorneys’ fees. At the return date of the motion, the court scheduled a pretrial conference. Prior to the scheduled date, the court requested that each law firm submit an hourly itemization of the services rendered. Each firm submitted the requested information in a letter to the court. In a subsequent letter to the court, Moran & Kufta contested certain items included by Vogt. Vogt then responded thereto, stating, “We have no comments at this time concerning the list of services and time submitted by Moran & Kufta, leaving any such questions to time of trial or hearing.” Prior to the scheduled date of the pretrial conference, the court apportioned 80% of the attorneys’ fees to Moran & Kufta and 20% to Vogt. We conclude that on these facts a hearing is required in order to determine “the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel” (Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679, 680; see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458). Thus, we reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing before a different Justice to determine the proper [956]*956apportionment of attorneys’ fees. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Barry, J. — Counsel Fees.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 955, 735 N.Y.S.2d 440, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-wegmans-food-markets-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack