Holzberg v. Liebman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holzberg v. Liebman

205 A.D.2d 321, 614 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023

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

DecidedJune 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 321 (Holzberg v. Liebman) 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

Holzberg v. Liebman, 205 A.D.2d 321, 614 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 15, 1993, [322]*322which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied summary judgment to plaintiff with respect to his claim for legal fees since there are questions of fact as to the scope of the retainer agreement, its application to an appeal for which defendant paid other counsel, and the amount of work actually done by plaintiff with respect to that appeal (see, Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172), as well as the serious counterclaims raised. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 15, 1993, [322]*322which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly denied summary judgment to plaintiff with respect to his claim for legal fees since there are questions of fact as to the scope of the retainer agreement, its application to an appeal for which defendant paid other counsel, and the amount of work actually done by plaintiff with respect to that appeal (see, Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172), as well as the serious counterclaims raised. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 321, 614 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzberg-v-liebman-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack