Cody v. O'Neill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cody v. O'Neill

116 A.D.2d 616, 498 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51482

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 616 (Cody v. O'Neill) 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

Cody v. O'Neill, 116 A.D.2d 616, 498 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs’ former attorneys appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated February 25, 1985, which fixed their attorney’s lien at $11,351.31 with interest, out of a total attorney’s fee of $32,432.35, in the settlement of the underlying action.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term arrived at an apportionment of the attorney’s fees in this action after conducting a hearing at which it had ample opportunity to evaluate the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses as well as to consider the experience and background of counsel and the quantity, quality and effectiveness of the legal work performed (see, Matter of Tillman, 259 NY 133, 136). Upon review of the record, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the sum awarded constituted other than fair and reasonable compensation (cf. Sammon v Green, 63 AD2d 872). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs’ former attorneys appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated February 25, 1985, which fixed their attorney’s lien at $11,351.31 with interest, out of a total attorney’s fee of $32,432.35, in the settlement of the underlying action.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term arrived at an apportionment of the attorney’s fees in this action after conducting a hearing at which it had ample opportunity to evaluate the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses as well as to consider the experience and background of counsel and the quantity, quality and effectiveness of the legal work performed (see, Matter of Tillman, 259 NY 133, 136). Upon review of the record, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the sum awarded constituted other than fair and reasonable compensation (cf. Sammon v Green, 63 AD2d 872). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 616, 498 N.Y.S.2d 315, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cody-v-oneill-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack