Rivera v. Walter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Walter

122 A.D.3d 442, 996 N.Y.S.2d 34

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2014

Docket13463N 26234/04

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 442 (Rivera v. Walter) 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

Rivera v. Walter, 122 A.D.3d 442, 996 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 19, 2013, which apportioned 60% of plaintiffs attorneys’ fees to her incoming attorneys, appellant Morelli Alters Ratner, EC., 15% to her first outgoing attorney, respondent Mark Kressner, Esq., and 25% to her second outgoing attorneys, respondent Corpina, Piergrossi, Klar & Peterman, LLf unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, which presided over this matter from its inception, observed first-hand the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome, and properly analyzed these factors (see Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2009]). The rec *443 ord shows that Kressner commenced the suit, served various discovery demands, attended court conferences, and filed a bill of particulars, but did the least work of all plaintiffs attorneys during his more than 3V2 years representing plaintiff, warranting only 15% of the fees. The Corpina firm’s contributions in, among other things, defending plaintiffs two depositions, warrant 25% of the award, and the remaining 60% is appropriately apportioned to Morelli (see e.g. Castellanos v CBS Inc., 89 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2011]).

While Morelli contributed significantly to the settlement at mediation, deposed one of the defendant doctors, obtained and reviewed relevant medical records, and consulted with an expert, among other things, it nevertheless did not do as much work as the incoming attorneys in the cases it cites, such as preparing for and representing plaintiff at trial, making substantive pretrial motions, and taking an appeal (compare Han Soo Lee v Riverhead Bay Motors, 110 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2013]).

Morelli cites no evidence that the Corpina firm was discharged for cause, and insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Kressner was discharged for cause.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered April 19, 2013, which apportioned 60% of plaintiffs attorneys’ fees to her incoming attorneys, appellant Morelli Alters Ratner, EC., 15% to her first outgoing attorney, respondent Mark Kressner, Esq., and 25% to her second outgoing attorneys, respondent Corpina, Piergrossi, Klar & Peterman, LLf unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court, which presided over this matter from its inception, observed first-hand the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome, and properly analyzed these factors (see Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [1st Dept 2009]). The rec *443 ord shows that Kressner commenced the suit, served various discovery demands, attended court conferences, and filed a bill of particulars, but did the least work of all plaintiffs attorneys during his more than 3V2 years representing plaintiff, warranting only 15% of the fees. The Corpina firm’s contributions in, among other things, defending plaintiffs two depositions, warrant 25% of the award, and the remaining 60% is appropriately apportioned to Morelli (see e.g. Castellanos v CBS Inc., 89 AD3d 499 [1st Dept 2011]).

While Morelli contributed significantly to the settlement at mediation, deposed one of the defendant doctors, obtained and reviewed relevant medical records, and consulted with an expert, among other things, it nevertheless did not do as much work as the incoming attorneys in the cases it cites, such as preparing for and representing plaintiff at trial, making substantive pretrial motions, and taking an appeal (compare Han Soo Lee v Riverhead Bay Motors, 110 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2013]).

Morelli cites no evidence that the Corpina firm was discharged for cause, and insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Kressner was discharged for cause.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 442, 996 N.Y.S.2d 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-walter-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack