McCrudden v. Putnam Valley Central School District
88 A.D.3d 721, 930 N.Y.2d 879
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
[722]*722Since an award of an attorney’s fee was not authorized by an agreement between the parties, by statute, or by Court rule, the Supreme Court improperly awarded an attorney’s fee to the petitioner (see U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v City Club Hotel, LLC, 3 NY3d 592 [2004]; Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487, 491 [1989]; Matter of Gargano v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin., 26 AD3d 329 [2006]). Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ, concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McCrudden v. Putnam Valley Central School District, 88 A.D.3d 721, 930 N.Y.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
88 A.D.3d 721 (McCrudden v. Putnam Valley Central School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matter of LaBarbera v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
2025 NY Slip Op 04569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Robinson v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.
2025 NY Slip Op 30712(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Matter of Ferrera v. New York City Dept. of Educ.
2024 NY Slip Op 04317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)