Miller v. DeBuono

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. DeBuono

272 A.D.2d 144, 709 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379

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

DecidedMay 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 144 (Miller v. DeBuono) 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

Miller v. DeBuono, 272 A.D.2d 144, 709 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, severed petitioner’s claim for attorneys’ fees and directed an assessment for same against both the City Department of Social Services (DSS) and the State Department of Health, unanimously modified, on the law, the assessment of fees directed against the City vacated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in directing an independent assessment of attorney’s fees against the City DSS, since it is well settled that the City agency acts on behalf of the State agency, and the latter is held liable for any attorneys’ fees imposed in [145]*145this context (see, Matter of Thomasel v Perales, 78 NY2d 561, 570; Matter of Tormos v Hammons, 259 AD2d 434; Matter of Cleary v Perales, 191 AD2d 209). Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, severed petitioner’s claim for attorneys’ fees and directed an assessment for same against both the City Department of Social Services (DSS) and the State Department of Health, unanimously modified, on the law, the assessment of fees directed against the City vacated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in directing an independent assessment of attorney’s fees against the City DSS, since it is well settled that the City agency acts on behalf of the State agency, and the latter is held liable for any attorneys’ fees imposed in [145]*145this context (see, Matter of Thomasel v Perales, 78 NY2d 561, 570; Matter of Tormos v Hammons, 259 AD2d 434; Matter of Cleary v Perales, 191 AD2d 209). Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 144, 709 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-debuono-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack