From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buckley v. Nucraloy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1995
213 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

An evaluation of what constitutes reasonable counsel fees is a matter that is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, DeCabrera v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881; Matter of Aronesty v. Aronesty, 202 A.D.2d 240), which is often in the best position to judge those factors integral to the fixing of counsel fees (see, Lefkowitz v. Van Ess, 166 A.D.2d 556; Shrauger v. Shrauger, 146 A.D.2d 955, 956). We find no basis to conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in fixing the counsel fees in this case. Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Buckley v. Nucraloy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1995
213 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Buckley v. Nucraloy Corp.

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN H. BUCKLEY et al., Appellants, v. NUCRALOY CORP., Defendant, and…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
624 N.Y.S.2d 867

Citing Cases

Clifford v. Pierce

An evaluation of what constitutes reasonable counsel fees is a matter that is generally left to the sound…