Garr v. Kinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garr v. Kinberg

3 A.D.3d 322, 769 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 322 (Garr v. Kinberg) 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

Garr v. Kinberg, 3 A.D.3d 322, 769 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Faula Oman-sky, J), entered November 8, 2002, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, in the principal amount of $28,639.35, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover legal fees, the jury was entitled to credit plaintiff attorney’s testimony concerning his compliance with 22 NYCRR 136.5 (a) and, based upon that testimony, to conclude that defendant client had been afforded the requisite notice of her right to arbitrate the fee dispute. Nor, under the circumstances presented, in which plaintiff substantially complied with 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3, rendered substantial services and achieved a reasonably favorable result, is plaintiffs recovery of legal fees precluded by his late filing of the parties’ retainer agreement (see Flanagan v Flanagan, 267 AD2d 80 [1999]). Finally, the trial evidence, fairly considered (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 136 [1985]), amply supported the jury verdict awarding plaintiff the full amount of legal fees requested.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Faula Oman-sky, J), entered November 8, 2002, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, in the principal amount of $28,639.35, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover legal fees, the jury was entitled to credit plaintiff attorney’s testimony concerning his compliance with 22 NYCRR 136.5 (a) and, based upon that testimony, to conclude that defendant client had been afforded the requisite notice of her right to arbitrate the fee dispute. Nor, under the circumstances presented, in which plaintiff substantially complied with 22 NYCRR 1400.2 and 1400.3, rendered substantial services and achieved a reasonably favorable result, is plaintiffs recovery of legal fees precluded by his late filing of the parties’ retainer agreement (see Flanagan v Flanagan, 267 AD2d 80 [1999]). Finally, the trial evidence, fairly considered (see Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 136 [1985]), amply supported the jury verdict awarding plaintiff the full amount of legal fees requested.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 322, 769 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garr-v-kinberg-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack