Law Offices of Rubenstein v. Shapiro

269 A.D.2d 224, 703 N.Y.S.2d 110, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1515
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 2000·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered February 2, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, entitled plaintiffs to recover from defendants-appellants certain counsel fees pursuant to the terms of a fee-sharing agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The proof adduced before the Special Referee, including evidence of the parties’ conduct and their various writings, as well as the closing statements of the matters referred by plaintiffs, sufficiently supported the Referee’s finding, confirmed by the IAS Court, that defendants-appellants had agreed to [225] share with plaintiffs half their fees for all matters referred to them by plaintiffs. Defendants-appellants’ contention that the court improperly referred the matter to a Referee to hear and report on contested questions of fact, thereby denying them their right to a jury trial of factual disputes with respect to defendants’ purported violation of the fee sharing agreement, has been waived. Appellants objected to the reference only upon the ground that the court had not ruled upon their motion for summary judgment and thereafter willingly participated in the hearing without requesting a jury trial (see, Chalu v Tov-Le Realty Corp., 220 AD2d 552, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 88 NY2d 959, lv dismissed 91 NY2d 952). Finally, the court appropriately amended the caption of the action to add the firm of Shapiro, Uchman & Myers, P. C. as a party defendant since that entity, the successor firm of the principal individual defendant, actively participated in all of the proceedings and, following the dissolution of Shapiro & Baines, received fees attributable to at least one of the cases referred by plaintiffs. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Law Offices of Rubenstein v. Shapiro, 269 A.D.2d 224, 703 N.Y.S.2d 110, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

269 A.D.2d 224 (Law Offices of Rubenstein v. Shapiro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wagman v. Kalik
117 A.D.3d 590 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Carlos G.
96 A.D.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Winopa International, Ltd. v. Woori America Bank
59 A.D.3d 203 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Dodge v. Lynch
55 A.D.3d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kurzman Karelsen & Frank, L. L. P. v. Kaiser
283 A.D.2d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)