Juste v. New York City Transit Authority

5 A.D.3d 736, 773 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 736 (Juste v. New York City Transit Authority) 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
Juste v. New York City Transit Authority, 5 A.D.3d 736, 773 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., nonparty Louis C. Fiabane appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.H.O.), dated September 23, 2003, which, after a hearing, awarded him an attorney’s fee in the amount of only $1,116.33.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding Louis C. Fiabane $1,176.33 and substituting therefor a provision awarding him $2,500.00; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant payable by the respondent.

An award of a reasonable attorney’s fee is within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court based upon such factors as the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, the skill required to handle the matter, and the effectiveness of the legal work performed (see Ebrahimian v Long Is. R.R., 269 AD2d 488 [2000]; Olson v City of New York, 257 AD2d 653 [1999]). The issue of the apportionment of attorneys’ fees is controlled by the circumstances and equities of each particular case (see Grossman v Grossman, 260 AD2d 602 [1999]), and the Supreme Court is in the best position to assess these factors. Under the facts of this case, however, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in the award of the attorney’s fee to the extent indicated herein (cf. Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Guerrero v. Urby LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 51471(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
PennyMac Corp v. Bongiovanni
2024 NY Slip Op 50452(U) (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, 2024)
Parker Waichman, LLP v. Mauro
215 A.D.3d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Lamanna v. Compitiello
213 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Boruch v. Rommi Realty, LLC
182 N.Y.S.3d 166 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Jules v. David
210 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Robinson & Yablon, P.C. v. Sacco & Fillas, LLP
2021 NY Slip Op 02003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Pyong Woo Ye v. Pasha
2019 NY Slip Op 6425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
2019 NY Slip Op 2735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Wodecki v. Vinogradov
125 A.D.3d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Breidbart v. Wiesenthal
117 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
G.M. Data Corp. v. Potato Farms, LLC
95 A.D.3d 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Chiu v. Chiu
67 A.D.3d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
SO/Bluestar, LLC v. Canarsie Hotel Corp.
33 A.D.3d 986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Mazza v. Marcello
20 A.D.3d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 736, 773 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juste-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2004.