Heilbut v. John Durante, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heilbut v. John Durante, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 141, 732 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11454

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 141 (Heilbut v. John Durante, 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

Heilbut v. John Durante, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 141, 732 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 5, 2000, awarding money to respondent outgoing attorney to be paid by appellant incoming attorney, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 7, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted the outgoing attorney’s motion to confirm a Special Referee’s report recommending, inter alia, that the outgoing attorney be awarded 70% of the legal fee, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superceded by the appeal from the judgment.

The incoming attorney’s claim that the outgoing attorney was discharged for cause and therefore is not entitled to any fee was properly rejected for lack of evidence that the complained of delay in bringing the action to trial was caused by the outgoing attorney’s malpractice (see, Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Zuker, 203 AD2d 119, 119-120). In addition, the record substantially supports the Special Referee’s finding that the amount and value of the work performed by the attorneys warrants a 70%-30% division of the fee in favor of the outgoing attorney (see, Schoenau v Lek, 283 AD2d 200). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered June 5, 2000, awarding money to respondent outgoing attorney to be paid by appellant incoming attorney, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 7, 1999, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted the outgoing attorney’s motion to confirm a Special Referee’s report recommending, inter alia, that the outgoing attorney be awarded 70% of the legal fee, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superceded by the appeal from the judgment.

The incoming attorney’s claim that the outgoing attorney was discharged for cause and therefore is not entitled to any fee was properly rejected for lack of evidence that the complained of delay in bringing the action to trial was caused by the outgoing attorney’s malpractice (see, Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Zuker, 203 AD2d 119, 119-120). In addition, the record substantially supports the Special Referee’s finding that the amount and value of the work performed by the attorneys warrants a 70%-30% division of the fee in favor of the outgoing attorney (see, Schoenau v Lek, 283 AD2d 200). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 141, 732 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heilbut-v-john-durante-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack