Maloku v. Nikkah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maloku v. Nikkah

239 A.D.2d 255, 657 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5298

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

DecidedMay 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 255 (Maloku v. Nikkah) 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

Maloku v. Nikkah, 239 A.D.2d 255, 657 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.) entered on or about January 9, 1996, which granted respondent outgoing counsel’s motion to confirm the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer and fixed outgoing counsel’s lien at $150,000, denied plaintiffs’ motion to disaffirm that report to the above extent, and denied respondent outgoing counsel’s application for immediate payment, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 5, 1996, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer properly took into account the numerous factors pertinent to the fixing of outgoing counsel fees in quantum meruit (see, Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9), and appellants’ arguments to the contrary represent nothing more than their own self-serving view of the evidence, which gives this Court no reason to disturb the factual determinations (see, Antzakas v Farmland Dairies, 202 AD2d 324). Outgoing counsel was properly granted an immediate hearing to fix the quantum meruit amount (see, Matter of Schwartz, 235 AD2d 482), and it was within the motion court’s discretion to determine that payment to outgoing counsel be deferred until the conclusion of the action, rather than be made immediately (see, Horn v Horn, 210 AD2d 296, 298). We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.) entered on or about January 9, 1996, which granted respondent outgoing counsel’s motion to confirm the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer and fixed outgoing counsel’s lien at $150,000, denied plaintiffs’ motion to disaffirm that report to the above extent, and denied respondent outgoing counsel’s application for immediate payment, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 5, 1996, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer properly took into account the numerous factors pertinent to the fixing of outgoing counsel fees in quantum meruit (see, Matter of Freeman, 34 NY2d 1, 9), and appellants’ arguments to the contrary represent nothing more than their own self-serving view of the evidence, which gives this Court no reason to disturb the factual determinations (see, Antzakas v Farmland Dairies, 202 AD2d 324). Outgoing counsel was properly granted an immediate hearing to fix the quantum meruit amount (see, Matter of Schwartz, 235 AD2d 482), and it was within the motion court’s discretion to determine that payment to outgoing counsel be deferred until the conclusion of the action, rather than be made immediately (see, Horn v Horn, 210 AD2d 296, 298). We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 255, 657 N.Y.S.2d 186, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloku-v-nikkah-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack