From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Catinella v. Mecca & Son Trucking Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 27, 2011
90 A.D.3d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-27

Nicholas CATINELLA, plaintiff, v. MECCA & SON TRUCKING CORPORATION, et al., defendants;Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C., nonparty-appellant,David J. DeToffol, Esq., P.C., nonparty-respondent.

Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Jeffrey A. Berson], of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se. David J. DeToffol, Esq., P.C., New York, N.Y., nonparty-respondent pro se.


Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Berson & Budashewitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Jeffrey A. Berson], of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se. David J. DeToffol, Esq., P.C., New York, N.Y., nonparty-respondent pro se.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C., the plaintiff's former attorney, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated December 9, 2009, which granted that branch of its motion which was, in effect, for an award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of awarding it an attorney's fee in the sum of $17,500.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This appeal concerns a dispute over the division of a contingency fee between the plaintiff's outgoing and incoming counsel in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court awarded the outgoing counsel an attorney's fee in the sum of $17,500, which amounted to approximately seven percent of the total net contingency fee of $246,476.14.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that outgoing counsel was entitled to $17,500 as its portion of the contingency fee ( see Castellanos v. CBS Inc., 89 A.D.3d 499, 932 N.Y.S.2d 339; Diakrousis v. Maganga, 61 A.D.3d 469, 878 N.Y.S.2d 668; Brown v. Governele, 29 A.D.3d 617, 618, 815 N.Y.S.2d 651). The court properly considered the nature of the work performed, the relative contributions of counsel, and, insofar as the record permitted, the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case ( see Brown v. Governele, 29 A.D.3d at 618, 815 N.Y.S.2d 651).

ANGIOLILLO, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and HALL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Catinella v. Mecca & Son Trucking Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 27, 2011
90 A.D.3d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Catinella v. Mecca & Son Trucking Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Nicholas CATINELLA, plaintiff, v. MECCA & SON TRUCKING CORPORATION, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 27, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9576
934 N.Y.S.2d 849

Citing Cases

Pyong Woo Ye v. Pasha

Here, Andrew Park elected to receive a contingent percentage fee at the conclusion of this action. Given the…

Montanez v. Jeffrey M. Brown Assocs., Inc.

08 was an improvident exercise of discretion. We therefore reduce the award to 10% of the contingency fee…