54 Cited authorities

Lawrence v. Miller
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9434 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 402 times
Affirming denial of motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice case because the parties had not presented evidence to show whether the retainer agreement was unconscionable
Gillman v. Chase Manhattan
73 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 661 times
Holding that a party's signature generally creates a presumption that the party assented to the terms of the agreement
F.H. Krear Co. v. Nineteen Named Trustees
810 F.2d 1250 (2d Cir. 1987) Cited 465 times
Holding service provider was not a fiduciary when the contract that defined the amount of its compensation was the product of an arm’s-length negotiation
Hecht v. City of New York
60 N.Y.2d 57 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 378 times
Upholding Appellate Division's dismissal of negligence complaint because gap in sidewalk was trivial and therefore not actionable
Jacobson v. Sassower
66 N.Y.2d 991 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 247 times
Affirming Jacobson v. Sassower, supra
Moran v. Erk
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9255 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 128 times 1 Legal Analyses
Raising the prospect that New York law will not impose limitations on a party's discretion that are not created by the language of the contract
In re Abrams Abrams
605 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2010) Cited 121 times
Holding that "fixing a lodestar fee in this contingency case was error"
King v. Fox
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4746 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 135 times
Finding that even a fee agreement otherwise prohibited as unconscionable may be enforced if the parties entered into it knowingly and intentionally
Emigrant Mortg. Co. v. Fitzpatrick
95 A.D.3d 1169 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 100 times
Observing that, while both elements are generally required to find unconscionability, "the more questionable the meaningfulness of choice, the less imbalance in a contract’s terms should be tolerated and vice versa"
Matter of Rothko
43 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 237 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where it is impossible to appraise damages with certainty, the Surrogate "had the right to resort to reasonable conjectures and probable estimates and to make the best approximation possible through the exercise of good judgment and common sense in arriving at that amount"
Section 691.20 - Claims or actions for personal injury, property damage, wrongful death, loss of services resulting from personal injuries, due to negligence or any type of malpractice, and claims in connection with condemnation or change of grade proceedings
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 691.20 Cited 110 times
(a) Statements as to retainers; blank retainers. (1) Every attorney who, in connection with any action or claim for damages for personal injury or for property damages, or for death or loss of services resulting from personal injuries, due to negligence or any type of malpractice or in connection with any claim in condemnation or change of grade proceedings, accepts a retainer or enters into an agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services rendered or to be rendered in such action
Section 603.7 - Repealed
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 603.7 Cited 58 times
Limiting opportunities for attorneys to increase contingent fee percentages in certain types of actions brought in the First Department

In the Matter of Sylvan Lawrence, Deceased.---------------Richard S. Lawrence, et al., Respondents,v.Graubard Miller, et al., Appellants,----------------Richard S. Lawrence, et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

54 Cited authorities

Affirming denial of motion to dismiss in a legal malpractice case because the parties had not presented evidence to show whether the retainer agreement was unconscionable

Holding that a party's signature generally creates a presumption that the party assented to the terms of the agreement

Holding service provider was not a fiduciary when the contract that defined the amount of its compensation was the product of an arm’s-length negotiation

Upholding Appellate Division's dismissal of negligence complaint because gap in sidewalk was trivial and therefore not actionable

Affirming Jacobson v. Sassower, supra

Raising the prospect that New York law will not impose limitations on a party's discretion that are not created by the language of the contract

Holding that "fixing a lodestar fee in this contingency case was error"

Finding that even a fee agreement otherwise prohibited as unconscionable may be enforced if the parties entered into it knowingly and intentionally

Observing that, while both elements are generally required to find unconscionability, "the more questionable the meaningfulness of choice, the less imbalance in a contract’s terms should be tolerated and vice versa"

Holding that where it is impossible to appraise damages with certainty, the Surrogate "had the right to resort to reasonable conjectures and probable estimates and to make the best approximation possible through the exercise of good judgment and common sense in arriving at that amount"

Limiting opportunities for attorneys to increase contingent fee percentages in certain types of actions brought in the First Department