Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm v. Danzig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm v. Danzig

248 A.D.2d 178, 670 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2386

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 178 (Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm v. Danzig) 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

Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm v. Danzig, 248 A.D.2d 178, 670 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 21, 1995, which, inter alia, deemed this proceeding brought under Judiciary Law § 475 to be a plenary action for breach of contract, directed a reference to hear and report on the existence and terms of the alleged oral agreement to share attorneys’ fees, and ordered that an escrow account be [179]*179established to allow payment to the parties’ respective clients, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating so much of the order as directs a reference, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly perceived this dispute between attorneys over the sharing of contingency fees paid by their respective clients as sounding in contract, and properly converted the matter pursuant to CPLR 103 (c). However, whether there was an agreement to share attorneys’ fees, and, if so, its terms, are issues triable by a jury, and should not have been referred to a Special Referee (see, CPLR 4101; Graphic Offset Co. v Torre, 78 AD2d 788). We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Naxdelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 21, 1995, which, inter alia, deemed this proceeding brought under Judiciary Law § 475 to be a plenary action for breach of contract, directed a reference to hear and report on the existence and terms of the alleged oral agreement to share attorneys’ fees, and ordered that an escrow account be [179]*179established to allow payment to the parties’ respective clients, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating so much of the order as directs a reference, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly perceived this dispute between attorneys over the sharing of contingency fees paid by their respective clients as sounding in contract, and properly converted the matter pursuant to CPLR 103 (c). However, whether there was an agreement to share attorneys’ fees, and, if so, its terms, are issues triable by a jury, and should not have been referred to a Special Referee (see, CPLR 4101; Graphic Offset Co. v Torre, 78 AD2d 788). We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Naxdelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 178, 670 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacob-d-fuchsberg-law-firm-v-danzig-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack