Melendez v. Barbulescu
228 A.D.2d 420, 643 N.Y.2d 419, 643 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6215
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 3, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
[421] We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in apportioning the legal fees in this case without holding an evidentiary hearing. Both the appellant and the plaintiffs’ current attorney submitted evidence in support of their respective contentions, thereby providing the Supreme Court with an ample basis to render a determination (see, Rondinelli v Yabuki, 224 AD2d 404). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Melendez v. Barbulescu, 228 A.D.2d 420, 643 N.Y.2d 419, 643 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 420 (Melendez v. Barbulescu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Boddie-Willis v. Marziliano
78 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
DeLorenzo v. Perlman
304 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Tverskaya v. Avis Corp.
303 A.D.2d 492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)