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.
Jacob CONNELLY, etc., Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Defendant; Kerner and Kerner, Nonparty-Appellant.
In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, Kerner and Kerner, the former attorney for the plaintiff, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 5, 2000, as, after a hearing, granted the motion of Eric H. Green, the plaintiff's attorney, inter alia, to award it no fee in the action to the extent of awarding it only $750.
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, 602 N.Y.S.2d 788, 622 N.E.2d 288; Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570; Fernandez v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 238 A.D.2d 544, 656 N.Y.S.2d 687). 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, 602 N.Y.S.2d 788, 622 N.E.2d 288; 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, 602 N.Y.S.2d 788, 622 N.E.2d 288; 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, 709 N.Y.S.2d 849; American Home Assur. Co. v. Choudary, 255 A.D.2d 346, 679 N.Y.S.2d 840).
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: March 04, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)