Goetz & Fitzpatrick, P. C. v. S. S. Silberblatt, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goetz & Fitzpatrick, P. C. v. S. S. Silberblatt, Inc.

52 A.D.2d 777, 382 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12549

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

DecidedMay 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 777 (Goetz & Fitzpatrick, P. C. v. S. S. Silberblatt, Inc.) 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

Goetz & Fitzpatrick, P. C. v. S. S. Silberblatt, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 777, 382 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 23, 1975, granting plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. Plaintiff, a legal service corporate law firm, entered into two contingent fee arrangements with the defendant regarding claims with the United States Postal Service. The plaintiff arranged a settlement, and for all intents and purposes completed its services before it was discharged, and so the contract terms apply. It is the contention of the defendant that if sums in settlement of one of the two contingent fee arrangements were attributed to the other arrangement, the amount of the fee would be less. However, the memorandum of the postal service with respect to the two settlements and its refusal to alter the settlement terms show that there is no basis for the defendant to be successful in this contention. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 23, 1975, granting plaintiff-respondent’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. Plaintiff, a legal service corporate law firm, entered into two contingent fee arrangements with the defendant regarding claims with the United States Postal Service. The plaintiff arranged a settlement, and for all intents and purposes completed its services before it was discharged, and so the contract terms apply. It is the contention of the defendant that if sums in settlement of one of the two contingent fee arrangements were attributed to the other arrangement, the amount of the fee would be less. However, the memorandum of the postal service with respect to the two settlements and its refusal to alter the settlement terms show that there is no basis for the defendant to be successful in this contention. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 777, 382 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goetz-fitzpatrick-p-c-v-s-s-silberblatt-inc-nyappdiv-1976.