Shmueli v. NRT New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shmueli v. NRT New York, Inc.

78 A.D.3d 595, 910 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 595 (Shmueli v. NRT New York, Inc.) 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

Shmueli v. NRT New York, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 595, 910 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Crespo, Special Ref.), entered September 10, 2008, as amended by order, same Referee and entry date, which, inter alia, determined that respondent law firm was entitled to a charging lien fixed at 33V3% upon the proceeds of the underlying litigation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that the Special Referee, as the trier of fact, considered the proof before him, as well as the credibility of the witnesses, and determined that the March 13, 2003 retainer agreement between plaintiff and her attorney in the underlying litigation, which included a 331/s% contingency fee, [596]*596was binding and enforceable. The evidence presented at the hearing supported the Referee’s decision and his rejection of plaintiffs claim that she revoked the original retainer agreement and that the parties agreed upon a reduced contingency fee (see Brookman & Brookman P.C. v Joseph Fleischer Natural Coiffures, Inc., 13 AD3d 196 [2004]). Nor does the record support plaintiffs claim that no fee should have been awarded because her attorney failed to disclose a conflict of interest to her.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J, Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Crespo, Special Ref.), entered September 10, 2008, as amended by order, same Referee and entry date, which, inter alia, determined that respondent law firm was entitled to a charging lien fixed at 33V3% upon the proceeds of the underlying litigation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that the Special Referee, as the trier of fact, considered the proof before him, as well as the credibility of the witnesses, and determined that the March 13, 2003 retainer agreement between plaintiff and her attorney in the underlying litigation, which included a 331/s% contingency fee, [596]*596was binding and enforceable. The evidence presented at the hearing supported the Referee’s decision and his rejection of plaintiffs claim that she revoked the original retainer agreement and that the parties agreed upon a reduced contingency fee (see Brookman & Brookman P.C. v Joseph Fleischer Natural Coiffures, Inc., 13 AD3d 196 [2004]). Nor does the record support plaintiffs claim that no fee should have been awarded because her attorney failed to disclose a conflict of interest to her.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J, Mazzarelli, Nardelli, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 595, 910 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shmueli-v-nrt-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack