Siracusa v. Tomko Carriers Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siracusa v. Tomko Carriers Corp.

180 A.D.2d 727, 581 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D.2d 727 (Siracusa v. Tomko Carriers Corp.) 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

Siracusa v. Tomko Carriers Corp., 180 A.D.2d 727, 581 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs’ former attorney, Paul Goldstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered March 28, 1990, which denied renewal of a prior motion to fix counsel fees which resulted in an order of the same court, entered November 6, 1989, awarding him half of the net attorneys’ fees in the underlying lawsuit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ former attorney’s renewed motion. In any event, even if we were to consider the "new” information presented by the former attorney, we would conclude that the court properly awarded him 50% of the total fee. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs’ former attorney, Paul Goldstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered March 28, 1990, which denied renewal of a prior motion to fix counsel fees which resulted in an order of the same court, entered November 6, 1989, awarding him half of the net attorneys’ fees in the underlying lawsuit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ former attorney’s renewed motion. In any event, even if we were to consider the "new” information presented by the former attorney, we would conclude that the court properly awarded him 50% of the total fee. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 727, 581 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siracusa-v-tomko-carriers-corp-nyappdiv-1992.