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

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 538 (Lado v. Wardaska) 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 538, 895 N.Y.S.2d 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lado-v-wardaska-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack