Summary
granting counsel five percent of the net contingency fee for providing advice to appellate counsel and arranging for the collection of judgment
Summary of this case from Greenberg v. Cross Island Industries, Inc.Opinion
2003-01503.
Decided April 19, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., Roni Dersovitz, a member of Perecman Dersovitz, P.C., the former attorney for the plaintiffs, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated January 8, 2003, as, after a hearing, awarded Perecman Dersovitz, P.C., only 60% of the net contingency fee in the action, and awarded David H. Perecman Associates, PLLC, 40 % of the net contingency fee in the action.
Jaroslawicz Jaros, New York, N.Y. (Elliot B. Pasik of counsel), for nonparty-appellant.
Perecman Fanning, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Cyril Baines and David H. Perecman of counsel), for nonparty-respondent.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, by increasing the award to Perecman Dersovitz, P.C., to 95% of the net contingency fee in the action and decreasing the award to David H. Perecman Associates, PLLC, to 5% of the net contingency fee in the action; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant.
Perecman Dersovitz, P.C. (hereinafter P D), the outgoing counsel, commenced an action on the plaintiffs' behalf, conducted discovery, successfully moved for summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' liability, represented the plaintiffs at a trial on the issue of damages, which resulted in a verdict of approximately $1,800,000, and, when the defendants appealed, hired a law firm specializing in appellate practice to handle the appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs. When P D dissolved, one of its members formed David H. Perecman Associates, PLLC (hereinafter P A), the incoming firm. P A offered assistance and advice to appellate counsel during the course of the appeal. After the defendants were unsuccessful and were denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, P A arranged for the collection of the amount of the judgment, plus interest.
Considering the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature of the work performed, and the relative contributions of counsel ( see Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458; Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v. McCormack, 250 A.D.2d 679), the Supreme Court's assessment of the legal services provided by P A was significantly overvalued and constituted an improvident exercise of discretion ( see Pearl v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 156 A.D.2d 281, 286; cf. Clifford v. Pierce, 214 A.D.2d 697). We modify accordingly.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.