Spellman v. New York Telephone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spellman v. New York Telephone

298 A.D.2d 382, 751 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9467

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 382 (Spellman v. New York Telephone) 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

Spellman v. New York Telephone, 298 A.D.2d 382, 751 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Louis C. Fiabane, the plaintiff’s former attorney, appeals from an order [383]*383of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated March 29, 2001, which granted the motion of the plaintiffs current attorney, Roberta D. Asher, to confirm the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer, dated January 19, 2001, which recommended that he be awarded only five percent of the total attorney’s fee in the underlying action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination is supported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the nonparty respondent to confirm the report (see Mondello v Mondello, 253 AD2d 861).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Adams, 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, Louis C. Fiabane, the plaintiff’s former attorney, appeals from an order [383]*383of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated March 29, 2001, which granted the motion of the plaintiffs current attorney, Roberta D. Asher, to confirm the report of a Judicial Hearing Officer, dated January 19, 2001, which recommended that he be awarded only five percent of the total attorney’s fee in the underlying action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination is supported by the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the nonparty respondent to confirm the report (see Mondello v Mondello, 253 AD2d 861).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 382, 751 N.Y.S.2d 408, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spellman-v-new-york-telephone-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack