Joseph v. Ruffo

New York Court of Appeals

Joseph v. Ruffo

478 N.E.2d 179, 64 N.Y.2d 980, 489 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16675

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 478 N.E.2d 179 (Joseph v. Ruffo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph v. Ruffo, 478 N.E.2d 179, 64 N.Y.2d 980, 489 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16675 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum decision of the Appellate Division (101 AD2d 664).

We would but add that insofar as the decision of the Appellate Division may be interpreted to suggest that plaintiff’s award for attorneys’ fees should be reduced because he did not succeed on his Federal claim, such a ruling would be erroneous. The decision in Hensley v Eckerhart (461 US 424, 435) makes it clear that under the circumstances presented here the proper inquiry is the extent of relief obtained and not the legal grounds upon which it was granted.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye and Alexander concur.

Judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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