Castellanos v. CBS Inc.

89 A.D.3d 499, 932 N.Y.2d 339
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in apportioning the contingency fee (see Garrett v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 25 AD3d 424, 425 [2006]). The court properly considered all relevant factors, including time spent on the case, the quality of the work performed, and the amount recovered (see Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [2009]). We modify solely to correct the amount of the total fee to be apportioned.

We have considered the incoming counsel’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.

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

Castellanos v. CBS Inc., 89 A.D.3d 499, 932 N.Y.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

89 A.D.3d 499 (Castellanos v. CBS Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rivera v. Walter
122 A.D.3d 442 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Hopper v. Premier Coach, Inc.
111 A.D.3d 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Catinella v. Mecca & Son Trucking Corp.
90 A.D.3d 966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)