Raymond v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raymond v. City of New York

119 A.D.3d 464, 988 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2014

Docket22623/06 -2189

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.3d 464 (Raymond v. City of 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

Raymond v. City of New York, 119 A.D.3d 464, 988 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 15, 2013, which apportioned 15% of the contingency fee earned in the underlying personal injury cases to outgoing counsel Morton Buckvar, Esq. and 85% to incoming counsel Gersowitz, Libo & Korek, PC., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having considered “the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed[,] . . . the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome” (Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2009]), “the amount recovered” (Castellanos v CBS Inc., 89 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2011]), and “the experience, ability and reputation of the attorneys” (Martin v Feltingoff, 7 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 608 [2004]), we find that the allocation of the fee by the trial judge to Buckvar was appropriate.

Concur — Renwick, J.P, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Motion seeking to correct record on appeal denied.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered July 15, 2013, which apportioned 15% of the contingency fee earned in the underlying personal injury cases to outgoing counsel Morton Buckvar, Esq. and 85% to incoming counsel Gersowitz, Libo & Korek, PC., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having considered “the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed[,] . . . the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome” (Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2009]), “the amount recovered” (Castellanos v CBS Inc., 89 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2011]), and “the experience, ability and reputation of the attorneys” (Martin v Feltingoff, 7 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 608 [2004]), we find that the allocation of the fee by the trial judge to Buckvar was appropriate.

Concur — Renwick, J.P, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Motion seeking to correct record on appeal denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 464, 988 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack