From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wodecki v. Vinogradov

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 4, 2015
125 A.D.3d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2014-03842, Index No. 3479/10.

02-04-2015

Eric WODECKI, plaintiff, v. Inna VINOGRADOV, et al., defendants; Gruenberg Kelly Della, nonparty-appellant; Wingate Russotti Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, nonparty-respondent, et al., nonparty.

Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se. Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph P. Stoduto of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.


Gruenberg Kelly Della, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. (Zachary M. Beriloff of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se.

Wingate, Russotti, Shapiro & Halperin, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph P. Stoduto of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

Opinion In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Gruenberg Kelly Della appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), entered March 17, 2014, which, after an inquest, granted its motion for an award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of awarding it 25% thereof and awarding the remaining 75% to nonparty Wingate Russotti Shapiro & Halperin, LLP.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. When there is a fee dispute between the current and discharged attorneys for the plaintiff in an action to which a contingent fee retainer agreement applies, “[t]he discharged attorney may elect to receive compensation immediately based on quantum meruit or on a contingent percentage fee based on his or her proportionate share of the work performed on the whole case” (Matter of Cohen v. Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655, 658, 602 N.Y.S.2d 788, 622 N.E.2d 288 ). “Where a firm has not elected to receive a fixed fee upon discharge, there is a presumption that the firm has instead chosen a proportionate share of a contingency fee” (Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, 41 A.D.3d 367, 370, 839 N.Y.S.2d 469 ). “An award of a reasonable attorney's fee is within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court based upon such factors as the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, the skill required to handle the matter, and the effectiveness of the legal work performed” (Juste v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 5 A.D.3d 736, 773 N.Y.S.2d 597 ; see Brown v. Governele, 29 A.D.3d 617, 618, 815 N.Y.S.2d 651 ). Based upon the record in this case, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court's award of 25% of the attorney's fee to Gruenberg Kelly Della was an improvident exercise of discretion.


Summaries of

Wodecki v. Vinogradov

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 4, 2015
125 A.D.3d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Wodecki v. Vinogradov

Case Details

Full title:Eric WODECKI, plaintiff, v. Inna VINOGRADOV, et al., defendants; Gruenberg…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 4, 2015

Citations

125 A.D.3d 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2 N.Y.S.3d 590
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 873

Citing Cases

Llivicura v. 101 W. 78TH, LLC

The Sanders firm appeals. "When there is a fee dispute between the current and discharged attorneys for the…

Llivicura v. 101 W. 78th, LLC

"When there is a fee dispute between the current and discharged attorneys for the plaintiff in an action to…