From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. Eisenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1999
263 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

July 1, 1999.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shelia Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered October 9, 1998, in an action between former law partners concerning the splitting of a contingency fee earned after the dissolution of their partnership, awarding plaintiff damages with prejudgment interest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

PRESENT: Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.


We agree with the lAS Court that based on the plain terms of the fee-sharing agreement the parties entered into upon dissolving their partnership, and defendant's own description of his services in connection with the case that generated the contingency fee in issue, defendant earned only a 6.5% "preparation fee", not a 12.5% "trial fee", and that plaintiff was not required to perform any legal services in that case in order to be entitled to whatever remained of the fee after defendant's 6.5% share. Prejudgment interest on that remainder dating back to defendant's receipt of the fee was properly awarded. By statute, in an action for breach of contract, "[i]nterest shall be recovered" and "shall be computed from the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed" (CPLR 5001 [a], [b], the statute making no provision for any delay in the action attributable to the plaintiff.


Summaries of

Friedman v. Eisenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1999
263 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Friedman v. Eisenstein

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE H. FRIEDMAN, Respondent, v. JETHRO M. EISENSTEIN, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1999

Citations

263 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 25

Citing Cases

Vigilant Ins. Co. v. MF Global Fin. U.S. Inc.

Thus, Liberty and Axis's performance was not required, and prejudgment interest did not begin to accrue,…

Vigilant Ins. Co. v. MF Glob. Fin. Inc.

Finally, Supreme Court correctly found that there was no basis under New York law to toll the imposition of…