Opinion
Argued September 22, 2000
October 23, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated October 20, 1999, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Birzon, Quinn, Strang Huber, Smithtown, N.Y. (Joseph K. Strang of counsel), for appellant .
Pulvers Pulvers Thompson Kutner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Marc R. Thompson of counsel), for respondent.
Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"It has long been understood that in disputes among attorneys over the enforcement of fee-sharing agreements the courts will not inquire into the precise worth of the services performed by the parties as long as each party actually contributed to the legal work and there is no claim that either `refused to contribute more substantially'" (Benjamin v. Koeppel, 85 N.Y.2d 549, 556, quoting Sterling v. Miller, 2 A.D.2d 900, affd 3 N.Y.2d 778; see also, Witt v. Cohen, 1 92 A.D.2d 528; Gore v. Kressner, 157 A.D.2d 575).
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff provided sufficient legal services toward the earning of the fees generated by settlement of the claims at issue and thus was entitled to his share of the total fee as allocated in the parties' agreement (see, Matter of Fuller, 122 A.D.2d 792; Stinnett v. Sears Roebuck Co., 201 A.D.2d 362).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.