From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holzberg v. Feuerstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 1984
104 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

October 22, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Trial Term properly dismissed the second cause of action of the amended complaint wherein plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to a fee based on quantum meruit for services rendered in connection with the trial of an action in which he represented defendant Feuerstein as plaintiff under a contingent fee agreement. That trial ended in a judgment of dismissal against Feuerstein. After judgment was rendered, Feuerstein hired new attorneys who prosecuted an appeal and subsequently settled the action. Plaintiff is not entitled to a fee based on a percentage of the proceeds of the settlement because his contingent fee agreement made no reference to an appeal and the attorney-client relationship terminated after the judgment of dismissal was rendered (see Vitale v La Cour, 92 A.D.2d 892).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Holzberg v. Feuerstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 1984
104 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Holzberg v. Feuerstein

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST HOLZBERG, Appellant, v. BERNARD E. FEUERSTEIN, Respondent, et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 22, 1984

Citations

104 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover

The retainer agreement supplied by respondent speaks only of prosecuting or adjusting a claim for damages; no…

Matter of Alario v. DeMarco

Further, the relevant authorities support the Judicial Hearing Officer's determination that the petitioner…