Tutarashvili v. Barzilay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tutarashvili v. Barzilay

39 A.D.3d 851, 832 N.Y.S.2d 810

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 851 (Tutarashvili v. Barzilay) 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

Tutarashvili v. Barzilay, 39 A.D.3d 851, 832 N.Y.S.2d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the nonparty Steven Y. Podolsky, PC., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 18, 2006, as, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was to award it an attorney’s fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to award Steven Y. Podolsky, P.C., an attorney’s fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of the fee to be awarded to Steven V Podolsky, EC.

As the plaintiffs initial attorney of record, the appellant has a statutory lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 against the settlement reached in this action (see Russell v Zacearia, 8 AD3d 255 [2004]). In this fee dispute with the plaintiffs new attorneys, the appellant elected to receive a contingent percentage fee based on the proportionate share of the work it performed on the entire case (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655, 658 [1993]; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679, 679-680 [1998]). Therefore, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of the fee to be awarded to the appellant (see Smerda v City of New York, 7 AD3d 511, 512-513 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, 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, the nonparty Steven Y. Podolsky, PC., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 18, 2006, as, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was to award it an attorney’s fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to award Steven Y. Podolsky, P.C., an attorney’s fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of the fee to be awarded to Steven V Podolsky, EC.

As the plaintiffs initial attorney of record, the appellant has a statutory lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 against the settlement reached in this action (see Russell v Zacearia, 8 AD3d 255 [2004]). In this fee dispute with the plaintiffs new attorneys, the appellant elected to receive a contingent percentage fee based on the proportionate share of the work it performed on the entire case (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 NY2d 655, 658 [1993]; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679, 679-680 [1998]). Therefore, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the amount of the fee to be awarded to the appellant (see Smerda v City of New York, 7 AD3d 511, 512-513 [2004]). Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 851, 832 N.Y.S.2d 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tutarashvili-v-barzilay-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack