Young v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Young v. Sweeney

257 A.D. 878, 12 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8251

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

DecidedMay 10, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 878 (Young v. Sweeney) 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

Young v. Sweeney, 257 A.D. 878, 12 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of a Special Term of the Supreme Court, Saratoga county, entered in Fulton county clerk’s office, fixing the attorney’s lien of petitioner and directing the payment thereof. The appellant corporation had obtained a judgment and in an endeavor to collect, different attorneys were employed. Petitioner was retained in behalf of the company and by stipulation an order of substitution thereon was made, naming him as such attorney. Six hundred dollars has been collected but petitioner has not been paid for his services and disbursements, although another attorney who also acted in the matter has been paid. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur. [See, also, Matter of Eisenstadt, Inc., v. Heffernan, 256 App. Div. 488; Matter of Heffernan, post, p. 897.]

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

Appeal from an order of a Special Term of the Supreme Court, Saratoga county, entered in Fulton county clerk’s office, fixing the attorney’s lien of petitioner and directing the payment thereof. The appellant corporation had obtained a judgment and in an endeavor to collect, different attorneys were employed. Petitioner was retained in behalf of the company and by stipulation an order of substitution thereon was made, naming him as such attorney. Six hundred dollars has been collected but petitioner has not been paid for his services and disbursements, although another attorney who also acted in the matter has been paid. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur. [See, also, Matter of Eisenstadt, Inc., v. Heffernan, 256 App. Div. 488; Matter of Heffernan, post, p. 897.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 878, 12 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-sweeney-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack