From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Liss v. McCrory Stores Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1958
7 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

December 8, 1958


In an action by an infant to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father for medical expenses and loss of services, their attorney appeals from so much of an order authorizing the compromise of the causes of action for $7,000 as fixed his compensation at $1,400, including $210 disbursements. Appellant's principal contention is that a fee of one third of the recovery inclusive of disbursements would have been fair and minimal and in line with customary procedure. Order, insofar as appealed from, modified on the facts, so as to allow to appellant $2,300, inclusive of disbursements. As so modified, order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. It is our opinion that, under the circumstances of this case, the compensation awarded was inadequate and appellant's fee, in accordance with the statutory mandate of "suitable" compensation (Judiciary Law, § 474), should have been fixed more nearly at the usual and customary level approximating one third of the gross recovery.


The evaluation of the results obtained by appellant's services was, in my opinion, peculiarly within the knowledge of the trial court, whose discretion should not be disturbed. Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Liss v. McCrory Stores Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1958
7 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Liss v. McCrory Stores Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ALLAN S. LISS, an Infant, by ABRAHAM LISS, His Guardian ad Litem, et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 8, 1958

Citations

7 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Consequently, in rendering a determination as to "suitable compensation" within the meaning of Judiciary Law…

Werner v. Levine

On the other hand, the one-third rule of thumb is not to be applied indiscriminately regardless of the amount…