Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the Fuchsberg Fuchsberg Law Firm.
The Supreme Court properly confirmed the report of the Referee. There was ample evidence to support the Referee's determination that the attorney Bruce Benenfeld should be paid his share of the attorneys' fees generated by the underlying personal injury action (see, Clark v Vicinanzo, 151 A.D.2d 951; Rozales v Pegalis Wachsman, 127 A.D.2d 577; Namer v 152-54-56 E. 15th St. Realty Corp., 108 A.D.2d 705).
A valid fee sharing agreement existed between Benenfeld and the Fuchsberg Fuchsberg Law Firm, the attorneys of record. It is well established that an agreement between attorneys for the division of a legal fee is valid and enforceable in accordance with the terms set forth in the agreement so long as the attorney who seeks his share of the fee has contributed "`some work, labor or service toward the earning of the fee'" (Gore v Kressner, 157 A.D.2d 575, quoting Oberman v Reilly, 66 A.D.2d 686, 687; see, Frank North v Metnick, 157 A.D.2d 616; A. Stanley Proner, P.C. v Julien Schlesinger, 134 A.D.2d 182; Rozales v Pegalis Wachsman, 127 A.D.2d 577, supra; Matter of Fuller, 122 A.D.2d 792; Oberman v Reilly, supra). We are satisfied that Benenfeld provided sufficient services towards earning the fee. Although the plaintiffs contend that they were not informed of the fee sharing agreement pursuant to the Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 ( 22 NYCRR 1200.12), there was testimony from several witnesses that the plaintiffs were so informed. The Referee properly exercised his discretion in crediting these witnesses' testimony as compared with that of the plaintiffs (see, Oberman v Reilly, 66 A.D.2d 686, supra). Further, under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Referee's determination that Benenfeld's share in the attorneys' fees posed no ethical problems (see, Rodriguez v City of New York, 109 A.D.2d 692, revd on other grounds 66 N.Y.2d 825; Carter v Katz, Shandell, Katz Erasmous, 120 Misc.2d 1009). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.