Kaplan v. Karlick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Karlick

269 A.D.2d 319, 703 N.Y.S.2d 174, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 319 (Kaplan v. Karlick) 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

Kaplan v. Karlick, 269 A.D.2d 319, 703 N.Y.S.2d 174, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about November 9, 1998, which, in an action to enforce fee-splitting agreements between lawyers, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court erred in granting summary judgment. Testimony of a lawyer’s course of conduct is admissible in the circumstances presented. Any objection thereto goes to the weight of the evidence not its admissibility. The record reveals evidentiary proof of continuing and significant client contact, as well as proof of significant consultations with the attorney at the firm, since deceased, with whom plaintiffs had a long-term relationship. Therefore, there exist questions of fact precluding summary judgment. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about November 9, 1998, which, in an action to enforce fee-splitting agreements between lawyers, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court erred in granting summary judgment. Testimony of a lawyer’s course of conduct is admissible in the circumstances presented. Any objection thereto goes to the weight of the evidence not its admissibility. The record reveals evidentiary proof of continuing and significant client contact, as well as proof of significant consultations with the attorney at the firm, since deceased, with whom plaintiffs had a long-term relationship. Therefore, there exist questions of fact precluding summary judgment. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 319, 703 N.Y.S.2d 174, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-karlick-nyappdiv-2000.