From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 11, 1989
153 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

September 11, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The limited issue before this court upon remittitur is whether the award by the Supreme Court constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (4 N.Y. Jur 2d, Appellate Review, § 369; Matter of Hallgarten, 130 A.D.2d 749). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, and in view of the quantity and quality of Murtaugh's services prior to the commencement of the action, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in fixing Murtaugh's fee at 20% of the recovery, or $108,000. Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 11, 1989
153 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LAI LING CHENG et al., Plaintiffs, v. MODANSKY LEASING CO., INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 11, 1989

Citations

153 A.D.2d 839 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 331

Citing Cases

Ritornato v. Ritornato

Here, the evidence adduced at the inquest supports the Supreme Court's determination to reform the parties'…

Pearl v. Metropolitan Transportation Auth

(See, Rebello v City of New York, 135 A.D.2d, supra, at 474; cf., Oberman v Reilly, 66 A.D.2d 686, 687 [fee…