Lado v. Wardaska

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lado v. Wardaska

71 A.D.3d 538, 895 N.Y.S.2d 826

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2010·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered March 11, 2008, which awarded plaintiff Lado’s outgoing counsel, Kaminski, 10% of the net legal fee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having analyzed the relevant factors including the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed and the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome, the motion court’s apportionment of the contingency fee was a provident exercise of discretion (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458 [1989]; Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [2009]). The court properly declined to enforce the preexisting fee sharing agreement in the circumstances of this case (see Dugan v Dorff Constr. Co., 281 AD2d 158 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 606 [2002]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered March 11, 2008, which awarded plaintiff Lado’s outgoing counsel, Kaminski, 10% of the net legal fee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having analyzed the relevant factors including the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed and the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome, the motion court’s apportionment of the contingency fee was a provident exercise of discretion (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458 [1989]; Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [2009]). The court properly declined to enforce the preexisting fee sharing agreement in the circumstances of this case (see Dugan v Dorff Constr. Co., 281 AD2d 158 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 606 [2002]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Lado v. Wardaska, 71 A.D.3d 538, 895 N.Y.S.2d 826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

71 A.D.3d 538 (Lado v. Wardaska) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related