54 Cited authorities

  1. Gillman v. Chase Manhattan

    73 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 557 times
    Holding that a party is "conclusively bound" by an agreement "irrespective of . . . testimony that he did not read it and was unaware of its terms"
  2. Lawrence v. Miller

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9434 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 292 times

    No. 76. Argued October 23, 2008. decided December 2, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered November 27, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed, insofar as appealed from, that part of an order of the Surrogate's Court, New York County (Renee R. Roth, S.), which had confirmed so much of a Referee's report as recommended denial of motions by respondents estate of Alice Lawrence and Richard Lawrence

  3. F.H. Krear Co. v. Nineteen Named Trustees

    810 F.2d 1250 (2d Cir. 1987)   Cited 397 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
  4. Hecht v. City of New York

    60 N.Y.2d 57 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 340 times
    Upholding Appellate Division's dismissal of negligence complaint because gap in sidewalk was trivial and therefore not actionable
  5. Jacobson v. Sassower

    66 N.Y.2d 991 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 241 times
    Affirming Jacobson v. Sassower, supra
  6. King v. Fox

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4746 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 119 times
    Finding that even a fee agreement otherwise prohibited as unconscionable may be enforced if the parties entered into it knowingly and intentionally
  7. Emigrant Mortg. Co. v. Fitzpatrick

    95 A.D.3d 1169 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 88 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"
  8. Matter of Rothko

    43 N.Y.2d 305 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 218 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"
  9. In re Abrams Abrams

    605 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2010)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that "fixing a lodestar fee in this contingency case was error"
  10. Moran v. Erk

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9255 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 85 times
    In Moran, the Court of Appeals noted that the attorney approval clause at issue did not expressly limit the grounds on which approval could be withheld.
  11. s 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 96 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

  12. s 603.7 - (Repealed)

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 603.7   Cited 57 times
    Limiting opportunities for attorneys to increase contingent fee percentages in certain types of actions brought in the First Department