Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth DepartmentOct 5, 1990
560 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
560 N.Y.S.2d 575166 A.D.2d 917

Cases citing this case

How cited

lock 9 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

October 5, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Auser, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Where an attorney retained for a specific purpose based on a contract for a noncontingent fee is discharged without cause or withdraws for cause before the completion of the services, the amount of the attorney's fee must be determined on a quantum meruit basis (Matter of Montgomery, 272 N.Y. 323; Matter of Dunn, 205 N.Y. 398, 402-403; Ventola v. Ventola, 112 A.D.2d 291; Matter of Spellman, 4 A.D.2d 215, 216). Here, because defendant, an attorney, withdrew for cause, the court properly determined the amount of his fee on the basis of quantum meruit. By reason of its knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees, Supreme Court was able to form a judgment from the facts and evidence before it and determine the reasonable value of defendant's services (see, Jordan v. Freeman, 40 A.D.2d 656; McAvoy v. Harron, 26 A.D.2d 452, affd 21 N.Y.2d 821, rearg denied 21 N.Y.2d 971). "The relevant factors in the determination of the value of legal services are the nature and extent of the services, the actual time spent, the necessity therefor, the nature of the issues involved, the professional standing of counsel, and the results achieved" (Jordan v. Freeman, supra, at 656). Considering these factors, we cannot say that Supreme Court erred in its determination of the reasonable value of defendant's services.