Yalango v. Popp
651 N.E.2d 917, 85 N.Y.2d 960, 628 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 1511
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Yalango v. Popp. Read the opinion of the Court — 84 N.Y.2d 601 →
Opinion
[961]*961Motion by respondent O’Connell and Aronowitz, P. C. for clarification of this Court’s opinion and for amendment of remittitur denied. [See, 84 NY2d 601.] This Court’s opinion established that respondent was required to return all moneys retained in excess of the statutory fee to appellant. The issue of interest accrual was never addressed in the parties’ submissions to this Court, and is not appropriately raised for the first time on this motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Yalango v. Popp, 651 N.E.2d 917, 85 N.Y.2d 960, 628 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 1511 (N.Y. 1995).
651 N.E.2d 917 (Yalango v. Popp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Yalango v. Popp
644 N.E.2d 1318 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)