Cuestas v. Cuestas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cuestas v. Cuestas

112 A.D.2d 341, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56478

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 341 (Cuestas v. Cuestas) 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

Cuestas v. Cuestas, 112 A.D.2d 341, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, Jacob E. Heller appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Hurowitz, J.), dated March 12, 1984, which fixed the amount of the lien of the outgoing attorney in the sum of $500, less $400 previously paid.

Order modified, on the law and the facts, by increasing the amount of the lien to $2,000, less $400 previously paid. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

We find that the amount of the lien should have been determined on a quantum meruit basis and that the amount fixed was, therefore, inadequate to the extent indicated. Under the facts of this case, it is not necessary to remit the matter for a hearing (cf. Matter of Goldin, 104 AD2d 890). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, Jacob E. Heller appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Hurowitz, J.), dated March 12, 1984, which fixed the amount of the lien of the outgoing attorney in the sum of $500, less $400 previously paid.

Order modified, on the law and the facts, by increasing the amount of the lien to $2,000, less $400 previously paid. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

We find that the amount of the lien should have been determined on a quantum meruit basis and that the amount fixed was, therefore, inadequate to the extent indicated. Under the facts of this case, it is not necessary to remit the matter for a hearing (cf. Matter of Goldin, 104 AD2d 890). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 341, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuestas-v-cuestas-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack