From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vance v. Northern Electric Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 7, 1999
261 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 7, 1999

Appeal front Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Counsel Fees.

Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in its apportionment of the legal fees awarded to respondent, Dixon Hamilton, L. L. P. (Dixon), the firm substituted for petitioner, DeMarie Schoenborn, P. C. (DeMarie), as counsel for plaintiff. The partners of Dixon were formerly employed as associates by DeMarie. DeMarie and its former employees entered into an agreement providing that an associate who brought a client to the firm would receive 60% of the fee charged to that client and the firm would receive 40%. The agreement did not specify a fee arrangement in the event that the associate's employment relationship was terminated, and the court erred in constructing such an agreement ( see, McLean v. Michaelowsky, 117 Misc.2d 699, 701). The court erred in determining that DeMarie is entitled to only 40% of the fee because the fee at issue was earned both during the employment relationship and after its termination. Therefore, it is not subject to the agreement ( cf., Grasso v. Kubis, 198 A.D.2d 811). The court properly calculated that 62.2% of the fee was earned during the employment relationship with DeMarie. Thus, DeMarie is entitled to 62.2% of the total fees earned ( see, Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655, 658; Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458-459). We modify the order accordingly by providing that the award to DeMarie is $15,333.99.

We do not consider the further contention of DeMarie that the court erred in denying its application for a hearing. DeMarie failed to take a timely appeal from the order denying that application.


Summaries of

Vance v. Northern Electric Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 7, 1999
261 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Vance v. Northern Electric Company

Case Details

Full title:RHONDA VANCE, as Mother and Natural Guardian of JEANITA BROOKS, an Infant…

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

Date published: May 7, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 584

Citing Cases

De Marie & Schoenborn, P.C. v. Loncar

To conclude otherwise would run afoul of the "longstanding policy against the forfeiture of earned wages" (…