Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v. McCormack

250 A.D.2d 679, 672 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 11, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 679 (Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v. McCormack) 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
Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v. McCormack, 250 A.D.2d 679, 672 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a proceeding to fix attorneys’ fees, the petitioner appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cannizzaro, J.H.O.), dated March 24, 1997, and (2) an order of the same court, dated April 21, 1997, entered upon the decision, which, after a hearing, fixed his fee in the sum of only $14,724.78.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the sum of $14,724.78 and substituting therefor the sum of $26,504.62; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

When there is a fee dispute between outgoing and incoming attorneys, the outgoing attorney may elect to receive either immediate compensation based on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered or a contingent percentage [680]*680fee based on the proportionate share of the work performed on the entire case (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458; Schneebalg v Lincoln Sec. Life Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 684). Here, the petitioner, the outgoing attorney, elected to receive a contingent percentage fee at the conclusion of the underlying personal injury action (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., supra). Consequently, the court erred to the extent that it fixed his fee based on quantum meruit. Because the record is sufficient for us to determine the appropriate fee, it is unnecessary to remit the matter for a new determination.

Considering the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., supra, at 458, 459), we find that the petitioner is entitled to 20% of the total net contingent fee recovered in the personal injury action.

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to address the petitioner’s remaining contention. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Guerrero v. Urby LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 51471(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Messina v. Wedderburn
201 N.Y.S.3d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Reyes-Lopez v. Mendez
191 N.Y.S.3d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Stephen v. City of New York
216 A.D.3d 1029 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Cooper
2021 NY Slip Op 04019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Berkowitz v. Helms Bros., Inc.
2021 NY Slip Op 02127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Consolver v. Hotze
Supreme Court of Kansas, 2017
Hinds v. Kilgallen
83 A.D.3d 781 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates
41 A.D.3d 367 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Tutarashvili v. Barzilay
39 A.D.3d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Brown v. Governele
29 A.D.3d 617 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Padilla v. Sansivieri
31 A.D.3d 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Malerba v. Clifford
18 A.D.3d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Podbielski v. KMO 361 Realty Associates
6 A.D.3d 597 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Juste v. New York City Transit Authority
5 A.D.3d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Guess v. Parrott
585 S.E.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Carr v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
289 A.D.2d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Ocasio v. Schwertz
284 A.D.2d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices, L. L. P. v. Gorayeb & Associates
282 A.D.2d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Rosenberg v. McCormack
266 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D.2d 679, 672 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-e-rosenberg-p-c-v-mccormack-nyappdiv-1998.