Matarazzo Blumberg & Associates, P. C. v. Hyo Shin Bible Presbyterian Church

267 A.D.2d 74, 699 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12685
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 74 (Matarazzo Blumberg & Associates, P. C. v. Hyo Shin Bible Presbyterian Church) 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
Matarazzo Blumberg & Associates, P. C. v. Hyo Shin Bible Presbyterian Church, 267 A.D.2d 74, 699 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered January 26, 1999, which, in an interpleader action brought by a law [75]*75firm to resolve adverse claims to a portion of settlement proceeds asserted by the law firm’s client and a public adjuster who had been retained by the client, denied the client’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for partial summary judgment on its counterclaims against the law firm for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, and granted the law firm’s cross motion for, inter alia, summary judgment discharging it from liability on condition that it pay into court the disputed amount of money, and dismissing the client’s counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proof that the law firm was presented with a written agreement between its client and the public adjuster, entered into before the law firm had been retained and plainly purporting to entitle the public adjuster to a portion of the settlement proceeds realized as a result of the law firm’s efforts on behalf of the client, sufficiently establishes the law firm as a disinterested stakeholder entitled to be discharged under CPLR 1006. The foregoing necessarily entails rejection of the client’s claims that the law firm committed malpractice by, inter alia, withholding the disputed amount and instituting the instant interpleader action in order to reward the public adjuster for having recommended the law firm to the client. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Citibank, N.A. v. Park
2019 NY Slip Op 5761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 A.D.2d 74, 699 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matarazzo-blumberg-associates-p-c-v-hyo-shin-bible-presbyterian-nyappdiv-1999.