Anthony Jules, plaintiff, v. Nashonda David, et al., defendants;  Law Offices of Gerald P. Gross, P.C., nonparty-Appellant, Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C., nonparty-Respondent. (2022)

Submitted—September 22, 2022

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Law Offices of Gerald P. Gross, P.C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Loren Baily–Schiffman, J.), dated April 20, 2021.  The order granted the motion of nonparty Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C., for a determination of the allocation of a net contingency fee to the extent of determining that nonparty Law Offices of Gerald P. Gross, P.C., was not entitled to any portion of the net contingency fee.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting the motion of nonparty Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C., for a determination of the allocation of a net contingency fee to the extent of determining that nonparty Law Offices of Gerald P. Gross, P.C., was not entitled to any portion of the net contingency fee, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion to the extent of determining that nonparty Law Offices of Gerald P. Gross, P.C., is entitled to 10% of the net contingency fee;  as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the nonparty-appellant.

In December 2015, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident.  In January 2016, the plaintiff retained nonparty Law Offices of Gerald P. Gross, P.C. (hereinafter Gross), to represent him in seeking to recover damages arising from the accident.  After being retained, Gross filed a no-fault benefits application, referred the plaintiff to several doctors, scheduled and rescheduled independent medical examinations, and helped the plaintiff obtain a presettlement loan.  The principal of Gross also asserted that the firm investigated the accident scene, obtained and reviewed medical records and other relevant documents, and “spen[t] a great deal ․ of time” on the phone with the plaintiff “answering his many questions about his claim.”  The plaintiff ultimately discharged Gross.  In May 2018, the plaintiff retained nonparty Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C. (hereinafter Spektor).  In December 2018, Spektor filed a summons and complaint in this action on the plaintiff's behalf.  In July 2020, the plaintiff obtained a $100,000 settlement.

In August 2020, Spektor moved for a determination of the allocation of the net contingency fee obtained upon the settlement of the action.  In an order dated April 20, 2021, the Supreme Court, granted the motion to the extent of determining that Gross was not entitled to any portion of the net contingency fee.  Gross appeals.

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining that Gross was not entitled to any portion of the net contingency fee, since it cannot be said that the services performed by Gross were of no value (see Kottl v. Carey, 85 AD3d 870, 872;  cf.  Robinson & Yablon, P.C. v. Sacco & Fillas, LLP, 192 AD3d at 1156).  Although Gross failed to submit time records showing the hours allegedly spent investigating and discussing the claim with the plaintiff, Gross submitted evidence showing that it performed various services in connection with the plaintiff's case over a period in excess of two years, including, but not limited to, ensuring the plaintiff's appearances for independent medical examinations to determine the extent of his injuries and the need for additional treatment, and obtaining documentation vital to the plaintiff's case (see Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C., 196 AD3d 527, 529).  Considering the amount of time spent by Gross working on matters pertaining to the plaintiff's case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel, we deem it appropriate to award 10% of the net contingency fee to Gross.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court