Marcano v. U-Haul Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcano v. U-Haul Co.

82 A.D.3d 479, 918 N.Y.2d 340

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The referee’s findings are supported by the record (see Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375, 375-376 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 885 [2006]). Plaintiffs subjective satisfaction speaks to the relative quality of the attorneys’ services, a relevant factor in apportioning the fee (see Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [2009]). The record establishes that appellant’s contributions were duly considered by the referee and the court.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The referee’s findings are supported by the record (see Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375, 375-376 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 885 [2006]). Plaintiffs subjective satisfaction speaks to the relative quality of the attorneys’ services, a relevant factor in apportioning the fee (see Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [2009]). The record establishes that appellant’s contributions were duly considered by the referee and the court.

We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Marcano v. U-Haul Co., 82 A.D.3d 479, 918 N.Y.2d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 479 (Marcano v. U-Haul Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related