Shabazz v. City of New York

94 A.D.3d 569, 942 N.Y.S.2d 89
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 17, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by242 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 569 (Shabazz 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
Shabazz v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 569, 942 N.Y.S.2d 89 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered December 2, 2011, which, after a hearing for the judicial determination of the apportionment of legal fees earned in a personal injury action, apportioned 15% or $110,126.98 of the net contingency fee to the outgoing attorneys Segal & Lax, PC., and apportioned the remainder to the incoming attorneys the Perecman Firm, PLLC, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the apportionment of the net contingency fee to Segal & Lax to 5%, and increase the apportionment to the Perecman Firm to 95%, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although the outgoing attorneys served the notices of claim on the municipal defendants, obtained plaintiffs medical records, represented him in a municipal 50-h hearing, and commenced the action by filing and serving a summons and complaint, the record shows that the incoming attorneys performed significantly more work. Indeed, the incoming attorneys conducted all of the discovery and depositions in the case, retained all of the experts, selected a jury, represented plaintiff throughout the 10-day jury trial, obtained a $4 million verdict in plaintiffs favor, made and opposed post-verdict motions, and ultimately negotiated a $2.2 million settlement on plaintiffs behalf in an action that was complicated by plaintiffs credibility issues and the lack of witnesses. Accordingly, we modify the apportionment of the attorney’s fee to the extent indicated (see Brown v Governele, 29 AD3d 617 [2006]; Poulas v James Lenox House, Inc., 11 AD3d 332 [2004]; Greenberg v Cross Is. Indus., Inc., 522 F Supp 2d 463, 469 [ED NY 2007]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Thuku v. 324 E. 93 LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 02138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Buszko v. City of New York
118 A.D.3d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Han Soo Lee v. Riverhead Bay Motors
110 A.D.3d 436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
DeJesus v. Bridge
109 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.3d 569, 942 N.Y.S.2d 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shabazz-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.