Overeem v. Neuhoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Overeem v. Neuhoff

298 A.D.2d 510, 748 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9980

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 510 (Overeem v. Neuhoff) 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

Overeem v. Neuhoff, 298 A.D.2d 510, 748 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff’s attorney, Norman Leonard Cousins, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated September 11, 2001, which denied his motion pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474-a (4) to increase his fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the contentions of the plaintiff’s attorney, he failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances to warrant an increase from the statutory fee (see Judiciary Law § 474-a [4]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, 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, the plaintiff’s attorney, Norman Leonard Cousins, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated September 11, 2001, which denied his motion pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474-a (4) to increase his fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the contentions of the plaintiff’s attorney, he failed to demonstrate the existence of extraordinary circumstances to warrant an increase from the statutory fee (see Judiciary Law § 474-a [4]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Schmidt and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 510, 748 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overeem-v-neuhoff-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack