Harman v. Harman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harman v. Harman

33 A.D.2d 515, 304 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 515 (Harman v. Harman) 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

Harman v. Harman, 33 A.D.2d 515, 304 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered May 6, 1969, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. In affirming the order appealed from we conclude, as did Special Term, that the fees and disbursements, as fixed, are fair and reasonable for all compensable services rendered and disbursements incurred. We do not, however, approve of the general statements, that were made by the Referee in the course of the hearing, with reference to the fixing of allowances for the services rendered during conferences between two attorneys of the same firm in the interests of the client or for the services rendered by two such attorneys appearing simultaneously on a trial for the client. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, entered May 6, 1969, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements. In affirming the order appealed from we conclude, as did Special Term, that the fees and disbursements, as fixed, are fair and reasonable for all compensable services rendered and disbursements incurred. We do not, however, approve of the general statements, that were made by the Referee in the course of the hearing, with reference to the fixing of allowances for the services rendered during conferences between two attorneys of the same firm in the interests of the client or for the services rendered by two such attorneys appearing simultaneously on a trial for the client. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 515, 304 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harman-v-harman-nyappdiv-1969.