Nicit v. Schmidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicit v. Schmidt

156 A.D.2d 1021, 550 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16228

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 1021 (Nicit v. Schmidt) 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

Nicit v. Schmidt, 156 A.D.2d 1021, 550 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Surrogate erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that petitioner was not entitled to predecision interest on the amount awarded to him as attorney’s fees (see, Matter of Aaron, 30 NY2d 718). However, upon our review of the record and in the exercise of our independent discretionary powers (see, Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88, 93), we conclude that petitioner’s application for interest on his award of attorney’s fees should be denied. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the order. (Appeal from order of Seneca County Surrogate’s Court, DePasquale, J.— petition for judicial settlement.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Surrogate erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that petitioner was not entitled to predecision interest on the amount awarded to him as attorney’s fees (see, Matter of Aaron, 30 NY2d 718). However, upon our review of the record and in the exercise of our independent discretionary powers (see, Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88, 93), we conclude that petitioner’s application for interest on his award of attorney’s fees should be denied. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the order. (Appeal from order of Seneca County Surrogate’s Court, DePasquale, J.— petition for judicial settlement.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 1021, 550 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicit-v-schmidt-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack