Chernofsky & DeNoyelles v. Waldman

212 A.D.2d 566, 622 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1522
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 14, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 566 (Chernofsky & DeNoyelles v. Waldman) 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
Chernofsky & DeNoyelles v. Waldman, 212 A.D.2d 566, 622 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action by a law firm to recover legal fees and disbursements, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Turret, J.H.O.), dated December 21, 1992, which awarded the plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $20,000, and the plaintiff cross appeals from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s finding that there was no signed retainer agreement between the plaintiff law firm and the defendant. Accordingly, the amount of legal fees owed to the plaintiff upon its discharge by the defendant was properly determined on a quantum meruit basis (see, Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991).

The determination of whether legal fees are reasonable under the circumstances is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9-10). After a hearing, the Supreme Court determined that an award of $20,000 was reasonable based, inter alia, on the plaintiff’s expertise, the amount of the distributive award in the underlying matrimonial action, and the customary fee charged by other attorneys for similar services (see, Matter of [567]*567Freeman, supra). We find no basis in the record to disturb the court’s determination.

We have examined the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Doviak v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
134 A.D.3d 1324 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Weg and Myers, P.C. v. 126 Mulberry St. Realty Corp.
453 F. App'x 90 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Mann v. Lovett & Gould
289 A.D.2d 206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp.
156 F.3d 136 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Philip Irwin Aaron, P. C. v. Joseph Parisi TTEE Parisi Enterprises Inc.
240 A.D.2d 671 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Wehr v. New York Telephone Co.
234 A.D.2d 539 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Walters Motorcars, Ltd. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
169 Misc. 2d 737 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.2d 566, 622 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chernofsky-denoyelles-v-waldman-nyappdiv-1995.