Friedman v. Velasquez

140 A.D.3d 597, 33 N.Y.S.3d 701
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 2016·No. 1573N 113119/10·Published

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R Bluth, J.), entered December 7, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for an order awarding it 100% of the fee in the underlying action, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a notice of appeal solely on plaintiff’s *598 behalf. Plaintiff is not aggrieved by the denial of present counsel’s motion for an award of 100% of the contingency fee, since she will pay the contingency fee to present or former counsel or both, and has no interest in the allocation of the fee. Plaintiff thus lacks standing to bring the appeal (CPLR 5511; see Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v Kaplan, 120 AD3d 427, 428 [1st Dept 2014]). Since present counsel, to the extent it is aggrieved, failed to file a notice of appeal on its behalf and is not a party to this appeal, we cannot grant it affirmative relief (see Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57 [1983]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Friedman v. Velasquez, 140 A.D.3d 597, 33 N.Y.S.3d 701 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

140 A.D.3d 597 (Friedman v. Velasquez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v. Kaplan
120 A.D.3d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Hecht v. City of New York
454 N.E.2d 527 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)