From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grant v. Heit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 21, 2004
10 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

4085

September 21, 2004.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered April 2, 2003, which, in an action between former law partners, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, confirmed a Special Referee's report recommending that the contingency fee in a certain medical malpractice action be divided 75% to plaintiff and 25% to defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee's finding that 50% of the work performed in the subject malpractice action, including that by outside counsel, was done prior to the firm's dissolution has substantial support in the record and was properly confirmed ( see Poster v. Poster, 4 AD3d 145). Accordingly, plaintiff, who was substituted as attorney-of-record after dissolution, is entitled to 75% of the fee and defendant to 25%.

We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Grant v. Heit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 21, 2004
10 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Grant v. Heit

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA ANN GRANT, Respondent, v. JULIA P. HEIT, Appellant

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

Date published: Sep 21, 2004

Citations

10 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
781 N.Y.S.2d 761

Citing Cases

Wiggins v. Kopko

Nothing in the record reveals that an election as to payment of fees was made at or near the time of…

GRANT v. HEIT

Decided December 16, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 10 AD3d 539. Motion for leave to appeal…