ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Where there is a fee dispute between outgoing counsel and incoming counsel, outgoing counsel may elect to receive compensation based upon quantum meruit or a contingent percentage based on his or her proportionate share of the work performed on the entire case (see, Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655, 658; Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458; Fernandez v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 238 A.D.2d 544). However, where outgoing counsel fails to demand payment of a fixed sum at the time of discharge, it is presumed that he or she elected to receive a contingent percentage fee (see, Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero Bell, supra, at 659-660; Fernandez v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra).
The appellant elected to receive a contingent percentage fee, as it failed to demand a fixed fee at the time of discharge (see, Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero Bell, supra, at 659-660; Fernandez v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra). Accordingly, in light of the nature and extent of the services provided, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in its award to the appellant (see, Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero Bell, supra).
The appellant's remaining contention is not properly before this court, as it was not raised before the Supreme Court and, in any event, is without merit (see, Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Daley, 273 A.D.2d 315; American Home Assur. Co. v. Choudary, 255 A.D.2d 346).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.