Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp.

295 A.D.2d 267, 743 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6873

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

DecidedJune 27, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 267 (Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp.) 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

Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp., 295 A.D.2d 267, 743 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered February 27, 2001, which denied nonparty appellant’s motion to vacate its previous order, entered January 24, 2001, which ordered counsel to reduce its fees in the amount of $14,408.43 and to remit same to plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the claim at issue, for additional attorney’s fees representing a share of the value of the lien waiver, must be deemed waived since counsel failed to specifically disclose his intent to claim such an additional fee at the time of the settlement conference. We need not address at this time the question of whether such an additional fee is ever permissible. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered February 27, 2001, which denied nonparty appellant’s motion to vacate its previous order, entered January 24, 2001, which ordered counsel to reduce its fees in the amount of $14,408.43 and to remit same to plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that the claim at issue, for additional attorney’s fees representing a share of the value of the lien waiver, must be deemed waived since counsel failed to specifically disclose his intent to claim such an additional fee at the time of the settlement conference. We need not address at this time the question of whether such an additional fee is ever permissible. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 267, 743 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franciosa-v-145-south-fifth-corp-nyappdiv-2002.