From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garr v. Kinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 2004
3 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2644.

Decided January 6, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered November 8, 2002, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, in the principal amount of $28,639.35, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Pro Se, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Pro Se, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams, Friedman, JJ.


In this action to recover legal fees, the jury was entitled to credit plaintiff attorney's testimony concerning his compliance with 22 NYCRR § 136.5(a) and, based upon that testimony, to conclude that defendant client had been afforded the requisite notice of her right to arbitrate the fee dispute.

Nor, under the circumstances presented, in which plaintiff substantially complied with 22 NYCRR § 1400.2 and § 1400.3, rendered substantial services and achieved a reasonably favorable result, is plaintiff's recovery of legal fees precluded by his late filing of the parties' retainer agreement ( see Flanagan v. Flanagan, 267 A.D.2d 80). Finally, the trial evidence, fairly considered ( see Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 136), amply supported the jury verdict awarding plaintiff the full amount of legal fees requested.

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Garr v. Kinberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 2004
3 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Garr v. Kinberg

Case Details

Full title:IRA E. GARR, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SARA KINBERG…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
769 N.Y.S.2d 883

Citing Cases

In re Saul Edelstein

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The petitioner demonstrated that he substantially complied…

In the Matter of Wapner v. Solomon

Indeed, in his "reply" to the petition he acknowledged such agreement, asserting that petitioner had…