Melvin v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melvin v. City of New York

244 A.D.2d 390, 665 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 390 (Melvin v. City of New York) 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

Melvin v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 390, 665 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Gardiner & Nolan, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 23, 1996, which, after a hearing, awarded the plaintiffs’ former counsel, David M. Lee, attorney’s fees in the principal sum of $13,385.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find no basis to conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in apportioning counsel fees in this case (see, Matter of Budin, Reisman & Schwartz v [391]*391Giamboi, Reiss & Squitieri, 224 AD2d 325; see generally, Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Gardiner & Nolan, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated December 23, 1996, which, after a hearing, awarded the plaintiffs’ former counsel, David M. Lee, attorney’s fees in the principal sum of $13,385.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find no basis to conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in apportioning counsel fees in this case (see, Matter of Budin, Reisman & Schwartz v [391]*391Giamboi, Reiss & Squitieri, 224 AD2d 325; see generally, Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 390, 665 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack