Fiabane v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fiabane v. Goldstein

27 A.D.3d 281, 811 N.Y.S.2d 639

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 281 (Fiabane v. Goldstein) 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

Fiabane v. Goldstein, 27 A.D.3d 281, 811 N.Y.S.2d 639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Crespo, Special Referee), entered on or about January 27, 2005, which determined that plaintiff attorney is not entitled to a referral fee from defendant attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to disturb the Special Referee’s findings, based largely on credibility, that plaintiff and his putative client never had an oral retainer agreement and that defendant would not have agreed to the referral fee that plaintiff seeks to recover had plaintiff not falsely represented that he had such oral [282]*282retainer agreement (see RC 27th Ave. Realty Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 305 AD2d 135 [2003]). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Crespo, Special Referee), entered on or about January 27, 2005, which determined that plaintiff attorney is not entitled to a referral fee from defendant attorney, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to disturb the Special Referee’s findings, based largely on credibility, that plaintiff and his putative client never had an oral retainer agreement and that defendant would not have agreed to the referral fee that plaintiff seeks to recover had plaintiff not falsely represented that he had such oral [282]*282retainer agreement (see RC 27th Ave. Realty Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 305 AD2d 135 [2003]). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 281, 811 N.Y.S.2d 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiabane-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack