From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kayden v. Kayden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 6, 2000.

December 6, 2000.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the nonparty Monteleone Monteleone appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 19, 1999, as denied that branch of its motion which was to determine its counsel fee.

Monteleone Monteleone, Mt. Kisco, N.Y. (Anthony J. Monteleone of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se.

Grant, Weinhaus, LLP, Mamaroneck, N.Y. (Lisa Sohmers and Jeffrey D. Grant of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant law firm which represented the respondent, Fred Kayden, in a portion of this litigation, moved, inter alia, to withdraw as counsel, and for the court to determine its fee. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the motion which was to set its counsel fee. We affirm, but on a different ground. The appellant is not entitled to recover a legal fee for services rendered to the respondent because it failed to execute and file a written retainer agreement that complied with the relevant rules for such matters (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.11(c)(2)(ii); 1400.3; Potruch v. Berson, 261 A.D.2d 494).


Summaries of

Kayden v. Kayden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Kayden v. Kayden

Case Details

Full title:INA KAYDEN, PLAINTIFF, v. FRED KAYDEN, RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 908

Citing Cases

Verkowitz v. Torres

There is no doubt that VERKOWITZ did not abide by the rules, in that she did not provide written itemized…

Schlissel Ostrow Karabatos v. Vandewegher-Mullarkey

The parties' respective motions are granted in part to the limited extent indicted below. With respect to the…