From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopresti v. Ingenito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 29, 1996
229 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 29, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to conduct a hearing in accordance herewith.

The instant appeal in this personal injury action concerns the apportionment between the plaintiff's former attorney and present attorney of the attorney's fees generated by the settlement of the action. The plaintiff replaced his former attorney with his present attorney during the course of the action. After the action was settled, the former attorney and the present attorney each moved for apportionment of the legal fees, with the former attorney requesting an evidentiary hearing on the matter. The court did not hold an evidentiary hearing, but decided the motion on papers after oral argument. This was error.

In the present case it is undisputed that the plaintiff's former attorney was discharged without cause before the completion of services, and there is no allegation that he was discharged for cause. Therefore, "the amount of [his] compensation must be determined on a quantum meruit basis" (Teichner v. W J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979; see also, Theroux v. Theroux, 145 A.D.2d 625, 626). Under such circumstances, the court should conduct a hearing to determine the fee to which the discharged attorney is entitled for his or her work (see, Teichner v. W J Holsteins, supra). Thus, the order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing on the matter (see, Teichner v. W J Holsteins, supra). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lopresti v. Ingenito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 29, 1996
229 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Lopresti v. Ingenito

Case Details

Full title:GUISEPPE LOPRESTI, Plaintiff, v. LARRY INGENITO et al., Defendants, BERT…

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

Date published: Jul 29, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 45

Citing Cases

Schultz v. Hughes

Upon a motion by Trakas, wherein he disputed the claim that he had been discharged for cause, and a cross…

Held & Hines LLP v. Hussain

Accordingly, I recommend granting judgment in H&H's favor with respect to the quantum meruit claim and…