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.
Murray Breidbart, et al., appellants, v. Melvin L. Wiesenthal, et al., nonparty- respondent.
Submitted—March 31, 2014
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to compel partnership accountings and a distribution of partnership assets, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, Ct.Atty.Ref.), dated May 14, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the motion of nonparty Marshall G. Kaplan, the plaintiffs' former attorney, to establish a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the sum of $81,354.52.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
An attorney discharged without cause may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit (see Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655, 658; Schultz v. Hughes, 109 AD3d 895). In fixing such an award, the court should consider evidence of the time and skill required in the case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney's experience, ability and reputation, the client's benefit derived from the services, and the fee usually charged by attorneys for similar services (see Angotta v. Zelezny, 112 AD3d 570; DeGregorio v. Bender, 52 AD3d 645; SO/Bluestar, LLC v. Canarsie Hotel Corp., 33 AD3d 986; Padilla v. Sansivieri, 31 AD3d 64, 67). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the sum of $81,354.52 was a reasonable attorney's fee (see NYCTL 1996–1 Trust v. Stavrinos Realty Corp., 113 AD3d 602; Man Choi Chiu v. Winston Chiu, 67 AD3d 975; Juste v. New York City Tr. Auth., 5 AD3d 736.
DICKERSON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2012–09186 (Index No. 6038 /02)
Decided: May 14, 2014
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)