Ocasio v. Schwertz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ocasio v. Schwertz

284 A.D.2d 443, 726 N.Y.S.2d 571

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

DecidedJune 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 443 (Ocasio v. Schwertz) 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

Ocasio v. Schwertz, 284 A.D.2d 443, 726 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Steven D. Dollinger, the former attorney for Pamela J. Schwertz, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emelio, J.), entered September 5, 2000, which, after a hearing, fixed his fee in the sum of only $500.

[444]*444Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When there is a fee dispute between outgoing and incoming attorneys, the outgoing attorney may elect to receive either immediate compensation based on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered or a contingent percentage fee based on the proportionate share of the work performed on the entire case (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679). The appellant elected to receive his compensation based on quantum meruit. Thus, there is no merit to his contention that his fee should have been based on the proportionate share of the work he performed on the entire case. In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that $500 was the reasonable value of the services the appellant performed.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Steven D. Dollinger, the former attorney for Pamela J. Schwertz, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emelio, J.), entered September 5, 2000, which, after a hearing, fixed his fee in the sum of only $500.

[444]*444Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When there is a fee dispute between outgoing and incoming attorneys, the outgoing attorney may elect to receive either immediate compensation based on quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered or a contingent percentage fee based on the proportionate share of the work performed on the entire case (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P. C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679). The appellant elected to receive his compensation based on quantum meruit. Thus, there is no merit to his contention that his fee should have been based on the proportionate share of the work he performed on the entire case. In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that $500 was the reasonable value of the services the appellant performed.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Friedmann, Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 443, 726 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocasio-v-schwertz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack