AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE BORO PARK VILLAGE-PHASE I CONDOMINIUM, Plaintiff, v. BORO PARK TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATES, ETC., ET AL., Defendants. [AND OTHER ACTIONS] — HARTMAN, ULE, ROSE RATNER, LLP, Non-Party Appellant-Respondent, JACQUES F. ROSE TRIEF OLK, Non-Party Respondent-Appellant.

The Special Referee correctly determined that, based upon an agreement between the outgoing and incoming attorneys regarding the division of legal fees, a number of factors should be considered in apportioning the fee, including the work performed, the amount recovered, the quality of services, the circumstances of the case, the contributions of the respective attorneys toward achieving the outcome and the time spent on the case (see, Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458;Ebrahimian v. Long Island Railroad, 269 A.D.2d 488, 489). The Special Referee's determination is substantiated by the record and, accordingly, should not be disturbed (see Freedman v. Freedman, 211 A.D.2d 580; Warney v. Haddad, 194 A.D.2d 478, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 658).

We have examined the incoming attorneys' contentions on their cross appeal and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BOARD OF MGR. BORO PK. v. BORO PK. TOWNHOUSE
(Jun 21, 2001)