Malerba v. Clifford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malerba v. Clifford

18 A.D.3d 451, 793 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780

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

DecidedMay 2, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 451 (Malerba v. Clifford) 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

Malerba v. Clifford, 18 A.D.3d 451, 793 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover an attorney’s fee, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.H.O.), dated July 25, 2003, as granted his motion for summary judgment only to the extent of [452]*452awarding him “2% of the fee collected on the total $200,000 settlement” in the underlying personal injury action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Considering the amount of time spent on the entire case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458 [1989]; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679 [1998]; Schneebalg v Lincoln Sec. Life Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 684 [1996]), there is no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee of “2% of the fee collected on the total $200,000 settlement” in the underlying personal injury action.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover an attorney’s fee, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.H.O.), dated July 25, 2003, as granted his motion for summary judgment only to the extent of [452]*452awarding him “2% of the fee collected on the total $200,000 settlement” in the underlying personal injury action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Considering the amount of time spent on the entire case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 458 [1989]; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679 [1998]; Schneebalg v Lincoln Sec. Life Ins. Co., 225 AD2d 684 [1996]), there is no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee of “2% of the fee collected on the total $200,000 settlement” in the underlying personal injury action.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 451, 793 N.Y.S.2d 768, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malerba-v-clifford-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack