State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elias

221 A.D.2d 547, 635 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12022

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 547 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elias) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elias, 221 A.D.2d 547, 635 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, in which a hearing was held to determine fair and reasonable attorneys’ fees, Doris Elias appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered November 10, 1993, which, inter alia, awarded her former law firm fees in the sum of $21,797.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Doris Elias retained the law firm of Seavey, Fingerit, Vogel, Oziel and Skoller (hereinafter Seavey Fingerit) to represent her at an arbitration concerning an underinsured motorist claim. Pursuant to a written retainer agreement, Seavey Fingerit was to receive one-third of any award. Ultimately, the arbitration resulted in an award to Elias in the amount of $65,000 (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Elias, 221 AD2d 547 [decided herewith]). However, before the award was confirmed, differences arose between the parties which resulted in the termination of Seavey Fingerit’s representation of Elias and the selection of substitute counsel. Indeed, the arbitration award was confirmed while Elias was being represented by new counsel. After a two-day hearing to determine the fair and reasonable value of Seavey Fingerit’s services, at which Elias raised a variety of arguments for the reduction or denial of a fee, the court awarded Seavey Fingerit the amount of $21,797. We now affirm.

When counsel is discharged or substituted for without cause prior to the completion of representation, counsel is entitled to compensation in quantum meruit, whether that amount is more or less than the agreed-upon fee (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Ashker v International Bus. Mach. Corp., 201 AD2d 765; Hovanec Bldrs. & Developers Corp. v Hines, 173 AD2d 951; Wald v Wald, 170 AD2d 669; Theroux v Theroux, 145 AD2d 625). Here, we agree with the hearing court’s implicit finding that the substitution was without cause and find, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, that the amount awarded represented a fair and reasonable recovery in quantum meruit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, in which a hearing was held to determine fair and reasonable attorneys’ fees, Doris Elias appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered November 10, 1993, which, inter alia, awarded her former law firm fees in the sum of $21,797.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Doris Elias retained the law firm of Seavey, Fingerit, Vogel, Oziel and Skoller (hereinafter Seavey Fingerit) to represent her at an arbitration concerning an underinsured motorist claim. Pursuant to a written retainer agreement, Seavey Fingerit was to receive one-third of any award. Ultimately, the arbitration resulted in an award to Elias in the amount of $65,000 (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Elias, 221 AD2d 547 [decided herewith]). However, before the award was confirmed, differences arose between the parties which resulted in the termination of Seavey Fingerit’s representation of Elias and the selection of substitute counsel. Indeed, the arbitration award was confirmed while Elias was being represented by new counsel. After a two-day hearing to determine the fair and reasonable value of Seavey Fingerit’s services, at which Elias raised a variety of arguments for the reduction or denial of a fee, the court awarded Seavey Fingerit the amount of $21,797. We now affirm.

When counsel is discharged or substituted for without cause prior to the completion of representation, counsel is entitled to compensation in quantum meruit, whether that amount is more or less than the agreed-upon fee (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Ashker v International Bus. Mach. Corp., 201 AD2d 765; Hovanec Bldrs. & Developers Corp. v Hines, 173 AD2d 951; Wald v Wald, 170 AD2d 669; Theroux v Theroux, 145 AD2d 625). Here, we agree with the hearing court’s implicit finding that the substitution was without cause and find, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, that the amount awarded represented a fair and reasonable recovery in quantum meruit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 547, 635 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-v-elias-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack