Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore, Inc.

277 A.D.2d 415, 715 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12355

This text of 277 A.D.2d 415 (Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore, 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
Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore, Inc., 277 A.D.2d 415, 715 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Rite Aid Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated December 21, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action seeking an award of an attorney’s fee to the extent of awarding an attorney’s fee in the sum of $5,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination after a hearing on that branch of the motion which was for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action seeking an award of an attorney’s fee.

The plaintiff failed to establish, inter alia, the necessity for, the nature and extent of, and the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by its attorney (see, Chase Manhattan Bank v Bekerus, 276 AD2d 461; Centre Great Neck Co. v Penn Encore, 255 AD2d 543; Granada Condominium I v Morris, 225 AD2d 520; Matter of McGovern v Koch, 211 AD2d 682; Sand v Lammers, 150 AD2d 355). Given the challenges raised by the defendant Rite Aid Corporation, the affirmation of counsel alone is insufficient, and the reasonable amount and nature of the claimed services must be established at an adversarial hearing [416]*416(see, Matter of Rogers v Rogers, 161 AD2d 766; Matter of Joan Marie D. v Harold G., 155 AD2d 457; Sand v Lammers, supra). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sand v. Lammers
150 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Joan Marie D. v. Harold G.
155 A.D.2d 457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Rogers v. Rogers
161 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
McGovern v. Koch
211 A.D.2d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Granada Condominium I v. Morris
225 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Centre Great Neck Co. v. Penn Encore, Inc.
255 A.D.2d 543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Chase Manhattan Bank v. Bekerus
276 A.D.2d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 415, 715 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centre-great-neck-co-v-penn-encore-inc-nyappdiv-2000.