Rao v. Noferi

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rao v. Noferi

50 Misc. 2d 60, 269 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2058

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Misc. 2d 60 (Rao v. Noferi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rao v. Noferi, 50 Misc. 2d 60, 269 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An attorney has the implied authority to incur and is entitled to be reimbursed for such reasonable expenditures as the diligent prosecution or defense of the lawsuit may require (Badger v. Celler, 41 App. Div. 599; Regis Radio Corp. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 30 Misc 2d 341; Matter of Lessig, 165 Misc. 706). However, such disbursements are not deemed to include expenditures which are a necessary part or adjunct of a properly equipped lawyer’s office (Matter of Lessig, supra.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, motion for summary judgment granted and case remitted to the court below for an assessment of plaintiffs’ damages under CPLR 3212 (subd. [c]).

Tilzer, J. P., Hoestadter and Gold, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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