Opinion
384 CA 18–00706
03-22-2019
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Brian Chapin YORK, Defendant–Appellant. (Appeal No. 2.)
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (GREGORY V. PAJAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT. BRIAN CHAPIN YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
CELLINO & BARNES, P.C., BUFFALO (GREGORY V. PAJAK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
BRIAN CHAPIN YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this fee dispute between attorneys, defendant attorney appeals from a judgment that awarded plaintiff law firm one third of the attorneys' fees in the underlying personal injury litigation. We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in fashioning the award. In fixing the percentages to be awarded to the parties, the court properly considered "such factors as the amount of time spent by each lawyer on the case, the work performed and the amount of recovery" ( Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co. , 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570 [1989] ; see McCarthy v. Roberts Roofing & Siding Co., Inc. , 45 A.D.3d 1375, 1375–1376, 846 N.Y.S.2d 492 [4th Dept. 2007] ).