KAPLAN v. KARLICK (2000)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Arnold J. KAPLAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Gideon J. KARLICK, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: February 29, 2000

SULLIVAN, P.J., NARDELLI, TOM, LERNER and ANDRIAS, JJ.

John W. Carroll, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Victor Starsia, for Defendants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about November 9, 1998, which, in an action to enforce fee-splitting agreements between lawyers, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

The motion court erred in granting summary judgment. Testimony of a lawyer's course of conduct is admissible in the circumstances presented. Any objection thereto goes to the weight of the evidence not its admissibility. The record reveals evidentiary proof of continuing and significant client contact, as well as proof of significant consultations with the attorney at the firm, since deceased, with whom plaintiffs had a long-term relationship. Therefore, there exist questions of fact precluding summary judgment.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network