Haywoode v. Lee

225 A.D.2d 420, 640 N.Y.2d 484, 640 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2711
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 19, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 420 (Haywoode v. Lee) 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
Haywoode v. Lee, 225 A.D.2d 420, 640 N.Y.2d 484, 640 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

The hearing court properly allocated the attorneys’ fees, especially in light of the outgoing attorney’s cavalier attitude with regard to the need for obtaining evidence and medical documentation and his demonstrated inability to produce necessary litigation documents from his file when called upon. While the incoming attorneys cannot be said to have performed yeoman’s work, by merely settling the action without having to serve any pleadings or conduct any discovery- at all, their efforts were more productive than the sudden flurry of activity conducted by the outgoing attorney when he learned of the imminent substitution. We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Poulas v. James Lenox House, Inc.
11 A.D.3d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 420, 640 N.Y.2d 484, 640 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haywoode-v-lee-nyappdiv-1996.