Friedman v. Velasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Velasquez

140 A.D.3d 597, 33 N.Y.S.3d 701

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

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket1573N 113119/10

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 597 (Friedman v. Velasquez) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 597, 33 N.Y.S.3d 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-velasquez-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack