Cushion v. Nemes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cushion v. Nemes

266 A.D.2d 126, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12049

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 126 (Cushion v. Nemes) 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

Cushion v. Nemes, 266 A.D.2d 126, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered as a judgment on March 10, 1999, which granted the motion of respondent law firm Herman & Kramer (H&K) for summary judgment on its claim for legal services in the amount of $15,900, and denied the cross motion of appellant successor attorney Blau to set aside H&K’s payment of $2,000 to an expert witness as excessive, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted H&K’s motion for summary judgment. H&K, having been discharged by plaintiff Valerie Cushion “without cause” and before the completion of its services, was entitled to recover the fair and reasonable value of those services rendered by it prior to termination (see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins, 64 NY2d 977, 979). Moreover, the court correctly held that the November 13, 1997 letter of appellant successor attorney Blau to H&K constituted a binding acknowledgment of H&K’s $15,900 lien on Cushion’s case. Finally, the [127]*127$2,000 fee paid to Dr. Kaye, an expert witness in plaintiffs medical malpractice case, was not excessive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered as a judgment on March 10, 1999, which granted the motion of respondent law firm Herman & Kramer (H&K) for summary judgment on its claim for legal services in the amount of $15,900, and denied the cross motion of appellant successor attorney Blau to set aside H&K’s payment of $2,000 to an expert witness as excessive, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly granted H&K’s motion for summary judgment. H&K, having been discharged by plaintiff Valerie Cushion “without cause” and before the completion of its services, was entitled to recover the fair and reasonable value of those services rendered by it prior to termination (see, Teichner v W & J Holsteins, 64 NY2d 977, 979). Moreover, the court correctly held that the November 13, 1997 letter of appellant successor attorney Blau to H&K constituted a binding acknowledgment of H&K’s $15,900 lien on Cushion’s case. Finally, the [127]*127$2,000 fee paid to Dr. Kaye, an expert witness in plaintiffs medical malpractice case, was not excessive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 126, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cushion-v-nemes-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack