From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wu v. Kao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1993
194 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 14, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefore a provision granting the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment entered December 31, 1990, only to the extent that the provision awarding attorney's fees is vacated; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant.

The law is well settled that a civil litigant may not recover attorney's fees in the absence of contractual or statutory authority (see, Matter of Green [Potter], 51 N.Y.2d 627, 629-630; Plancher v. Gladstein, 143 A.D.2d 740). As no such authority exists here, the award of attorney's fees should have been vacated.

However, we reject the defendant's remaining contentions that the judgment was otherwise procured by fraud and should have been vacated (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wu v. Kao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1993
194 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Wu v. Kao

Case Details

Full title:KATHY J.S. WU, Respondent, v. CHUNG S. KAO, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 14, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 999

Citing Cases

Ortiz v. Pantaleone

In any event, a single estimate for painting is insufficient proof of damages (see UJCA 1804). We further…

Muraca v. Meyerowitz

Given the dearth of evidence presented at trial on the trespass claim, it is summarily dismissed. Also…