Rosenzweig v. Gomez

250 A.D.2d 664, 672 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5522
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 11, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 664 (Rosenzweig v. Gomez) 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
Rosenzweig v. Gomez, 250 A.D.2d 664, 672 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., nonparty David B. Jacobs appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated March 27, 1997, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination which, without a hearing, granted him an attorney’s fee in the amount of only $3,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the issue of the amount of the attorney’s fee to be awarded to the appellant.

A suspended attorney may be compensated on a quantum meruit basis for legal services rendered, as well as for disbursements which he or she may have incurred prior to the effective date of the suspension (see, 22 NYCRR 691.10 [b]). The amount of the award should be based upon evidence of the time and skill required in that case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the client’s benefit from the services, and the fee usually charged by other attorneys for similar services (see, Potts v Hines, 144 AD2d 189; see also, Matter of Smith, 131 AD2d 913, 914; Jordan v Freeman, 40 AD2d 656).

It was improper for the court to determine the amount of compensation without a hearing. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the amount of the attorney’s fee to be awarded, at which time the court may consider further and more specific evidence of the work performed by the appellant prior to his suspension from the practice of law, as reflected by the file which is currently in the possession of the successor counsel. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ragland v. Molloy
2020 NY Slip Op 3933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Grossbarth v. Dankner, Milstein & Ruffo, P.C.
2018 NY Slip Op 144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Gould v. Decolator
131 A.D.3d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Biagioni v. Narrows MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C.
127 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Angotta v. Zelezny
112 A.D.3d 570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Heller v. Emanuel
460 F. App'x 48 (Second Circuit, 2012)
In Re Emanuel
422 B.R. 443 (S.D. New York, 2009)
DeGregorio v. Bender
52 A.D.3d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Callaghan v. Callaghan
48 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kennedy v. Point Dedicated Services, LLC
31 A.D.3d 1117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Padilla v. Sansivieri
31 A.D.3d 64 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Weisman v. Weisman
21 A.D.3d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Casey v. Ruffino
306 A.D.2d 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco, LLP v. Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C.
304 A.D.2d 86 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Rosenzweig v. Gomez
295 A.D.2d 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
250 A.D.2d 664, 672 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenzweig-v-gomez-nyappdiv-1998.