Grant v. Heit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Heit

10 A.D.3d 539, 781 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 539 (Grant v. Heit) 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

Grant v. Heit, 10 A.D.3d 539, 781 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[540]*540Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 2, 2003, which, in an action between former law partners, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirmed a Special Referee’s report recommending that the contingency fee in a certain medical malpractice action be divided 75% to plaintiff and 25% to defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee’s finding that 50% of the work performed in the subject malpractice action, including that by outside counsel, was done prior to the firm’s dissolution has substantial support in the record and was properly confirmed (see Poster v Poster, 4 AD3d 145 [2004]). Accordingly, plaintiff, who was substituted as attorney-of-record after dissolution, is entitled to 75% of the fee and defendant to 25%.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

[540]*540Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 2, 2003, which, in an action between former law partners, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirmed a Special Referee’s report recommending that the contingency fee in a certain medical malpractice action be divided 75% to plaintiff and 25% to defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee’s finding that 50% of the work performed in the subject malpractice action, including that by outside counsel, was done prior to the firm’s dissolution has substantial support in the record and was properly confirmed (see Poster v Poster, 4 AD3d 145 [2004]). Accordingly, plaintiff, who was substituted as attorney-of-record after dissolution, is entitled to 75% of the fee and defendant to 25%.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 539, 781 N.Y.S.2d 761, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-heit-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack