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.
The RACHMANI CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners-Appellants-Respondents, v. Randall T. SIMS, Respondent-Respondent-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Julius Birnbaum, Special Referee) entered May 24, 1999, which, in this proceeding to fix attorneys fees, awarded respondent attorney a $300,000 charging lien fee, pre-judgment interest in the amount of $65,003.42, and costs and disbursements in the amount of $4,815.50, unanimously modified, on the law, to award respondent interest on the sum of $149,500 from July 1, 1992, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Special Referee, entered May 24, 1999, which authorized the clerk to include respondent's share of the charge for obtaining transcripts as an element of costs and disbursements in the aforecited judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
The fee awarded by the referee after a hearing and due consideration of the various factors relevant to fixing a reasonable fee (see, Morgan & Finnegan v. Howe Chem. Co., Inc., 210 A.D.2d 62, 619 N.Y.S.2d 719) was in all respects proper under the circumstances of this case. However, the judgment should be modified to award respondent interest on $149,500 from July 1, 1992, the date upon which respondent's entitlement to the minimum acceptable settlement fee negotiated by the parties was shown by respondent to have arisen. Respondent established his entitlement to the minimum acceptable settlement fee negotiated by the parties, even in the absence of a bona fide settlement offer, by demonstrating that petitioner thwarted respondent's efforts to obtain a settlement in accordance with the retainer agreement (see, Patterson v. Meyerhofer, 204 N.Y. 96, 97 N.E. 472).
We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: January 20, 2000
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)