Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
QUALITY JEWELRY COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Asher SPITZER, et al., Defendants, Matarazzo Blumberg & Associates, P.C., et al., Parties Aggrieved Petitioners-Respondents,
Iser Abramovitz, Party Aggrieved-Appellant. MATARAZZO BLUMBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Petitioners-Respondents, v. Iser ABRAMOVITZ, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about March 12, 1997, which, inter alia, denied appellants' motion for a declaration that respondent law firm Matarazzo, Blumberg and Associates, P.C. (“MBA”), had been relieved from representing appellants for cause, and found that appellants were obligated to reimburse MBA for disbursements made in their behalf in the amount of $2629.29 and for $1,000 in Lexis legal research fees also expended by MBA in the course of appellants' representation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
We see no reason to disturb the court's determination that the representational relationship between respondent law firm and appellants was terminated by reason of irreconcilable differences and not “for cause”. Although appellants contend that a full evidentiary hearing was necessary to the proper adjudication of this issue, appellants failed to raise any issue warranting such a hearing. Moreover, the motion court, having presided over all aspects of the underlying litigation for several years, was well situated to evaluate the quality of the representation afforded by respondent law firm, and the court, after hearing extensive argument and considering the parties' written submissions, appropriately deemed that representation to have been “extremely competent”. Nor was a full evidentiary hearing necessary to resolve the parties' dispute as to the extent of appellants' obligation to reimburse respondent for documented disbursements and legal research expenditures. In determining the reasonableness of MBA's claims for reimbursement, the motion court took into account all relevant factors, and, we note, ultimately awarded an amount significantly less than that claimed. It should be emphasized that the motion court did not in the presently disputed ruling undertake to determine without an evidentiary hearing the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by respondent to appellants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 02, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)