Tverskaya v. Avis Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tverskaya v. Avis Corp.

303 A.D.2d 492, 756 N.Y.S.2d 452

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 2003·Published

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Sheryl R. Menkes, the plaintiffs’ first attorney, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated August 21, 2002, as, upon her motion for the allocation an attorney’s fee, awarded her only 50% of the total of the attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in apportioning the attorney’s fee in this case without holding a hearing. There is no indication that the appellant requested such a hearing. Furthermore, it appears that the appellant had ample opportunity on the written motion to submit any evidence in support of her claim, thereby providing the Supreme Court with a proper basis to render a determination (see Melendez v Barbulescu, 228 AD2d 420 [1996]; Rondinelli v Yabuki, 224 AD2d 404 [1996]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, 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., Sheryl R. Menkes, the plaintiffs’ first attorney, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J.), dated August 21, 2002, as, upon her motion for the allocation an attorney’s fee, awarded her only 50% of the total of the attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in apportioning the attorney’s fee in this case without holding a hearing. There is no indication that the appellant requested such a hearing. Furthermore, it appears that the appellant had ample opportunity on the written motion to submit any evidence in support of her claim, thereby providing the Supreme Court with a proper basis to render a determination (see Melendez v Barbulescu, 228 AD2d 420 [1996]; Rondinelli v Yabuki, 224 AD2d 404 [1996]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Tverskaya v. Avis Corp., 303 A.D.2d 492, 756 N.Y.S.2d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 492 (Tverskaya v. Avis Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related