Opinion
March 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 9, 1995, is dismissed, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 8, 1994, is modified, on the law and on the facts, by deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the sum $30,000 and substituting therefor the sum $75,000; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
It is well settled that when a dispute about the fee to be paid to a discharged attorney is between the discharged attorney and the incoming attorney, the discharged attorney may elect to receive immediate compensation for the reasonable value of his services based on quantum meruit or he may elect to receive a contingent percentage fee based on his proportionate share of the work performed (see, Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454; Michels v Drexler, 166 A.D.2d 695).
The outgoing attorney in this case, the appellant, elected to receive a contingent percentage fee. Since both the appellant and the incoming attorney for the plaintiff appear to have equally contributed to the final settlement of this action, the fee should be divided equally between them. Miller, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.