Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York

308 A.D.2d 386, 764 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 308 A.D.2d 386 (Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater 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

Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, 308 A.D.2d 386, 764 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2003, which granted plaintiff client’s motion to compel nonparty law firm to remit settlement proceeds, and denied the law firm’s cross motion for an increase in its fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474-a (4), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the record, including the law firm’s claimed but undocumented expenditures of time, we find that the law firm fails to show that its compensation pursuant to the fee schedule in Judiciary Law § 474-a (2) would be inadequate (see Yalango v Popp, 84 NY2d 601 [1994]). We have considered and rejected the law firm’s other arguments, and find it unnecessary to address the client’s other arguments. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2003, which granted plaintiff client’s motion to compel nonparty law firm to remit settlement proceeds, and denied the law firm’s cross motion for an increase in its fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474-a (4), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon review of the record, including the law firm’s claimed but undocumented expenditures of time, we find that the law firm fails to show that its compensation pursuant to the fee schedule in Judiciary Law § 474-a (2) would be inadequate (see Yalango v Popp, 84 NY2d 601 [1994]). We have considered and rejected the law firm’s other arguments, and find it unnecessary to address the client’s other arguments. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 386, 764 N.Y.S.2d 621, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perchuk-v-health-insurance-plan-of-greater-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack