Glassberg v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glassberg v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

83 A.D.3d 535, 920 N.Y.S.2d 665

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

DecidedApril 19, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 535 (Glassberg v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC) 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

Glassberg v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 83 A.D.3d 535, 920 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie S. Lowenstein, Special Ref.), entered January 4, 2010, which awarded plaintiff $26,000 in attorneys’ fees and disbursements pursuant to the Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-a) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 USC § 2301 et seq.), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no reason to disturb the determination of the Special Referee, which is supported by the record. Although there was as yet no signed stipulation of settlement, it was evident from the hearing testimony, and a clearly articulated basis for the determination, that defendant was ready to settle this action in early March 2009, and that plaintiffs attorneys, in refusing to provide defendant with a copy of their billings, held out for a greater amount of fees and thereby continued needlessly to incur further amounts. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie S. Lowenstein, Special Ref.), entered January 4, 2010, which awarded plaintiff $26,000 in attorneys’ fees and disbursements pursuant to the Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-a) and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 USC § 2301 et seq.), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no reason to disturb the determination of the Special Referee, which is supported by the record. Although there was as yet no signed stipulation of settlement, it was evident from the hearing testimony, and a clearly articulated basis for the determination, that defendant was ready to settle this action in early March 2009, and that plaintiffs attorneys, in refusing to provide defendant with a copy of their billings, held out for a greater amount of fees and thereby continued needlessly to incur further amounts. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 535, 920 N.Y.S.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glassberg-v-mercedes-benz-usa-llc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack