Ellison v. Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellison v. Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg

272 A.D.2d 571, 709 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6054

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 571 (Ellison v. Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg) 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

Ellison v. Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, 272 A.D.2d 571, 709 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant is not entitled to a contingent fee, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated July 20, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant law firm was not discharged before completing its services, and was successful in obtaining a highly favorable arbitration award for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (cf., Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant is not entitled to a contingent fee, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated July 20, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant law firm was not discharged before completing its services, and was successful in obtaining a highly favorable arbitration award for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (cf., Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172; Vitale v La Cour, 92 AD2d 892). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 571, 709 N.Y.S.2d 423, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellison-v-fuchsberg-fuchsberg-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack