Wilson v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Williams

232 A.D.2d 552, 648 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10381

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 552 (Wilson v. Williams) 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

Wilson v. Williams, 232 A.D.2d 552, 648 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Walter A. Begos, the attorney for the plaintiff Maureen Wilson, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered August 8, 1995, which, upon a $75,000 settlement, awarded him counsel fees of only one-third of $10,000 and awarded Essner & Winograd, the former attorneys for the plaintiff Maureen Wilson, counsel fees of one-third of $65,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the nonparty respondent.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, we find no basis to conclude that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in fixing the counsel fees in this case (see, Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d 697). The trial court was in the best position to weigh factors such as the time each lawyer spent on the case and the work performed (see, Clifford v Pierce, supra; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Williams v LaSala, 232 AD2d 552 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, 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, Walter A. Begos, the attorney for the plaintiff Maureen Wilson, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered August 8, 1995, which, upon a $75,000 settlement, awarded him counsel fees of only one-third of $10,000 and awarded Essner & Winograd, the former attorneys for the plaintiff Maureen Wilson, counsel fees of one-third of $65,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the nonparty respondent.

Contrary to appellant’s contention, we find no basis to conclude that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in fixing the counsel fees in this case (see, Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d 697). The trial court was in the best position to weigh factors such as the time each lawyer spent on the case and the work performed (see, Clifford v Pierce, supra; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Williams v LaSala, 232 AD2d 552 [decided herewith]). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 552, 648 N.Y.S.2d 946, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-williams-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack