Lande v. Castrillon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lande v. Castrillon

241 A.D.2d 512, 661 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7739

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

DecidedJuly 21, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D.2d 512 (Lande v. Castrillon) 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

Lande v. Castrillon, 241 A.D.2d 512, 661 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated May 15, 1996, as determined that the nonparty law firm Kriedman and Slater was entitled to a charging lien and disbursements pursuant to Judiciary Law §475.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding to the first decretal paragraph, after the words “disbursements in this action,” the words “except that there shall be no award of disbursements for photocopying expenses”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the nonparty law firm, Kriedman and Slater (hereinafter Kriedman) a charging lien [513]*513for legal services rendered to the plaintiff (see, Judiciary Law § 475; Ajar v Ajar, 207 AD2d 469; Rosen v Rosen, 97 AD2d 837; Matter of County of Nassau [Farber—Goldstein & Sons], 80 AD2d 613). However, that branch of the court’s order which awarded Kriedman disbursements should be modified by adding a provision disallowing any recovery for photocopying expenses. Kriedman has failed to document the reasonableness of the amount requested in connection with this particular disbursement. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated May 15, 1996, as determined that the nonparty law firm Kriedman and Slater was entitled to a charging lien and disbursements pursuant to Judiciary Law §475.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding to the first decretal paragraph, after the words “disbursements in this action,” the words “except that there shall be no award of disbursements for photocopying expenses”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly granted the nonparty law firm, Kriedman and Slater (hereinafter Kriedman) a charging lien [513]*513for legal services rendered to the plaintiff (see, Judiciary Law § 475; Ajar v Ajar, 207 AD2d 469; Rosen v Rosen, 97 AD2d 837; Matter of County of Nassau [Farber—Goldstein & Sons], 80 AD2d 613). However, that branch of the court’s order which awarded Kriedman disbursements should be modified by adding a provision disallowing any recovery for photocopying expenses. Kriedman has failed to document the reasonableness of the amount requested in connection with this particular disbursement. Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 512, 661 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lande-v-castrillon-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack