From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1996
232 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 21, 1996.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Walter A. Begos, the attorney for the plaintiff Maureen Wilson, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered August 8, 1995, which, upon a $75,000 settlement, awarded him counsel fees of only one-third of $10,000 and awarded Essner Winograd, the former attorneys for the plaintiff Maureen Wilson, counsel fees of one-third of $65,000.

Before: Mangano, J.P., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the nonparty respondent.

Contrary to appellant's contention, we find no basis to conclude that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in fixing the counsel fees in this case ( see, Clifford v Pierce, 214 AD2d 697). The trial court was in the best position to weigh factors such as the time each lawyer spent on the case and the work performed ( see, Clifford v Pierce, supra; Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454; Williams v LaSala, 232 AD2d 552 [decided herewith]).


Summaries of

Wilson v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1996
232 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Wilson v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:MAUREEN WILSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUDY WILLIAMS et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 552 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 946

Citing Cases

Williams v. LaSala

Contrary to appellant's contention, we find no basis to conclude that the trial court improvidently exercised…