Krupicka v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krupicka v. New York Telephone Co.

31 A.D.2d 931, 298 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4498

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 931 (Krupicka v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Krupicka v. New York Telephone Co., 31 A.D.2d 931, 298 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4498 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover 'damages for personal injuries, plaintiff’s former attorneys appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 15, 1967, which denied their application for a fee. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and application remanded to said court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The findings of fact below are not affirmed. The issue of appellants’ right to compensation was decided largely upon affidavits. The issue should be resolved only after a hearing in which sworn testimony and other evidence is received, subject to cross-examination (Matter of Weitling, 266 N. Y. 184; Matter of Long, 287 N. Y. 449). Appellants’ right .to compensation revolves around questions of judgment in prosecuting the action. This is clearly distinguishable from Automatic Bedding Gorp. v. Ortner (26 A D 2d 664) where the discharged attorneys’ undisclosed conflict of interest was apparent upon the papers. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover 'damages for personal injuries, plaintiff’s former attorneys appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 15, 1967, which denied their application for a fee. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and application remanded to said court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. The findings of fact below are not affirmed. The issue of appellants’ right to compensation was decided largely upon affidavits. The issue should be resolved only after a hearing in which sworn testimony and other evidence is received, subject to cross-examination (Matter of Weitling, 266 N. Y. 184; Matter of Long, 287 N. Y. 449). Appellants’ right .to compensation revolves around questions of judgment in prosecuting the action. This is clearly distinguishable from Automatic Bedding Gorp. v. Ortner (26 A D 2d 664) where the discharged attorneys’ undisclosed conflict of interest was apparent upon the papers. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 931, 298 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krupicka-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack