Casabene v. Gardner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Casabene v. Gardner

86 A.D.2d 884, 450 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15534

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A.D.2d 884 (Casabene v. Gardner) 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

Casabene v. Gardner, 86 A.D.2d 884, 450 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff’s former attorney appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered February 25, 1981, which fixed his fee at 20% of the fee received by plaintiff’s current attorney. Order modified, on the facts, by increasing the fee to 33Va% of the fee received by plaintiff’s current attorney. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record indicates that the appellant waived his right to a hearing. However, the order must be modified as the award was inadequate to the extent indicated. We find no merit in the other contentions raised by the appellant. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and O’Connor, 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, the plaintiff’s former attorney appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), entered February 25, 1981, which fixed his fee at 20% of the fee received by plaintiff’s current attorney. Order modified, on the facts, by increasing the fee to 33Va% of the fee received by plaintiff’s current attorney. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record indicates that the appellant waived his right to a hearing. However, the order must be modified as the award was inadequate to the extent indicated. We find no merit in the other contentions raised by the appellant. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 884, 450 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casabene-v-gardner-nyappdiv-1982.