Laurel Convalescent Home, Inc. v. County of Westchester, Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laurel Convalescent Home, Inc. v. County of Westchester, Department of Social Services

54 A.D.2d 983, 388 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14932

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 983 (Laurel Convalescent Home, Inc. v. County of Westchester, Department of Social Services) 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

Laurel Convalescent Home, Inc. v. County of Westchester, Department of Social Services, 54 A.D.2d 983, 388 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In (1) a proceeding to fix an attorney’s lien and (2) an action to recover for legal services, Laurel Convalescent Home, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 6, 1976, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of respondent A. Harry Kupersmith and against it. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In view of the services rendered and the results achieved, the retainer agreement was not oppressive. The trial court was familiar with the quality of the services rendered; its conclusion as to the propriety of the fee is entitled to great weight. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In (1) a proceeding to fix an attorney’s lien and (2) an action to recover for legal services, Laurel Convalescent Home, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 6, 1976, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of respondent A. Harry Kupersmith and against it. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In view of the services rendered and the results achieved, the retainer agreement was not oppressive. The trial court was familiar with the quality of the services rendered; its conclusion as to the propriety of the fee is entitled to great weight. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 983, 388 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurel-convalescent-home-inc-v-county-of-westchester-department-of-nyappdiv-1976.