Phifer v. Phifer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Phifer v. Phifer

50 A.D.2d 837, 376 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11700

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 837 (Phifer v. Phifer) 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

Phifer v. Phifer, 50 A.D.2d 837, 376 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In consolidated actions, (1) plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 13, 1974, as fixed the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by defendant Cucinell on her behalf at $2,500, plus $1,053.51 disbursements, and directed him to return $1,596.49 to plaintiff; and (2) defendant Cucinell appeals from the entire order. Appellant Cucinell’s brief states that his appeal is directed only to certain findings of fact and conclusions contained in the decision of Special Term. Order affirmed, [838]*838without costs. In our opinion, the attorney’s fee fixed by Special Term was fair and reasonable. We do not, however, agree with Special Term’s characterization of the attorney’s conduct. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

— In consolidated actions, (1) plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 13, 1974, as fixed the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by defendant Cucinell on her behalf at $2,500, plus $1,053.51 disbursements, and directed him to return $1,596.49 to plaintiff; and (2) defendant Cucinell appeals from the entire order. Appellant Cucinell’s brief states that his appeal is directed only to certain findings of fact and conclusions contained in the decision of Special Term. Order affirmed, [838]*838without costs. In our opinion, the attorney’s fee fixed by Special Term was fair and reasonable. We do not, however, agree with Special Term’s characterization of the attorney’s conduct. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 837, 376 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phifer-v-phifer-nyappdiv-1975.