From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boddie-Willis v. Marziliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2010-03748.

November 23, 2010.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Harold Chetrick, P.C., the plaintiffs outgoing attorney, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered March 22, 2010, which granted that branch of the motion of Cascione Galluzzi, LLC, the plaintiffs incoming attorney, which was to apportion attorney's fees to the extent of awarding Cascione Galluzzi, LLC, the sum of $6,000, and awarding it the sum of only $2,137.91.

Harold Chetrick, P.C., New York, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.

Cascione Galluzzi, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Thomas G. Cascione of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.

Before: Covello, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of Cascione Galluzzi, LLC, the plaintiffs incoming attorney, which was to apportion attorney's fees in this case, to the extent of awarding Cascione Galluzzi, LLC, the sum of $6,000, and awarding Harold Chetrick, EC. (hereinafter Chetrick), the sum of $2,137.91, without conducting a hearing. The evidence submitted by the attorneys in support of their respective positions provided the Supreme Court with a sufficient basis to render its determination ( see Matter of DeLorenzo v Perlman, 304 AD2d 827, 827-828; Melendez v Barbulescu, 228 AD2d 420, 421; Rondinelli v Yabuki, 224 AD2d 404).

As opposed to Chetrick's contention that the Supreme Court improperly apportioned attorney's fees without first conducting a hearing, its contention that the actual manner in which the Supreme Court apportioned the attorney's fees constituted an improvident exercise of discretion is not properly before this Court, since it was raised for the first time on appeal in its reply brief ( see Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors Siding, Inc., 68 AD3d 815, 816).


Summaries of

Boddie-Willis v. Marziliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 2010
78 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Boddie-Willis v. Marziliano

Case Details

Full title:AISHA BODDIE-WILLIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MARZILIANO, Defendant. HAROLD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 23, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8689
911 N.Y.S.2d 640

Citing Cases

Pontes v. F & S Contracting, LLC

The plaintiff's deposition testimony that his unnamed coworker told him after the accident that the brakes on…

Oparaji v. Citibank, N.A.

The July 17, 2012 order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied…