From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beige v. Beige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1999
265 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 28, 1999

October 18, 1999

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 22, 1997, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).


ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). In addition, the appeal from the order must be dismissed because the order did not decide a motion made on notice, and therefore is not appealable as of right (see, CPLR 5701[a][2]). The issues raised with respect to the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]). The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's oral application to dismiss the plaintiff's application for an award of counsel fees on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of 22 N.Y.CRR part 1400. The initial retainer agreement was executed on April 30, 1993, well before the November 30, 1993, effective date of 22 N.Y.CRR part 1400. Accordingly, the retainer agreement did not violate the subject rules. Moreover, the plaintiff had been continuously represented by her retained counsel almost from the inception of this matrimonial action. Thus, counsel's representation of the plaintiff was governed by the terms of the original retainer agreement.

We further note that while the plaintiff's counsel requested that she execute an updated retainer agreement in compliance with the new rules, this does not bring counsel's representation within the scope of 22 N.Y.CRR part 1400. In any event, the updated retainer specifically acknowledged the existence of the continuous representation.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Beige v. Beige

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1999
265 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Beige v. Beige

Case Details

Full title:ELLEN BEIGE, respondent, v. JOEL BEIGE, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 18, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
701 N.Y.S.2d 58

Citing Cases

Steven L. Levitt v. Comp. Hand

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs. The provision of the order which denied the appellant's…

Stern v. Stern

The defendant's appeal from the order which granted the plaintiff's oral application for the appointment of…