Friedland v. 601 West 149th Street, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedland v. 601 West 149th Street, Inc.

15 A.D.2d 742, 223 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11658

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 742 (Friedland v. 601 West 149th Street, Inc.) 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

Friedland v. 601 West 149th Street, Inc., 15 A.D.2d 742, 223 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no authority for entering a judgment pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law. Respondents’ contention that this is not a proceeding under this section is without merit, No suggestion is made that any other proceeding short of suit exists which was available to the outgoing attorneys. The remedy was available to the attorney Freiberger only as he was the only one who appeared in the action. This is not particularly significant as he would be entitled to be compensated for the work done by another attorney associated with him and working under his direction. The services performed were minimal, consisting in the drawing of a complaint and two unsuccessful efforts to oppose motions to make it more definite and certain and to separately state and number the causes of action. It is inconceivable that these services could even approximate 850 hours. Moreover, it appears that all services prior to the last court appearance were billed and paid for. The attempted explanations of the billing just did not explain. No finding of any sum remaining due was justified by the record. Costs are not awarded because proceedings were unduly protracted by delaying tactics [743]*743before the Referee. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

There is no authority for entering a judgment pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law. Respondents’ contention that this is not a proceeding under this section is without merit, No suggestion is made that any other proceeding short of suit exists which was available to the outgoing attorneys. The remedy was available to the attorney Freiberger only as he was the only one who appeared in the action. This is not particularly significant as he would be entitled to be compensated for the work done by another attorney associated with him and working under his direction. The services performed were minimal, consisting in the drawing of a complaint and two unsuccessful efforts to oppose motions to make it more definite and certain and to separately state and number the causes of action. It is inconceivable that these services could even approximate 850 hours. Moreover, it appears that all services prior to the last court appearance were billed and paid for. The attempted explanations of the billing just did not explain. No finding of any sum remaining due was justified by the record. Costs are not awarded because proceedings were unduly protracted by delaying tactics [743]*743before the Referee. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 742, 223 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedland-v-601-west-149th-street-inc-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack