From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lam v. Loo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2017
155 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

2016-07606, Index No. 20028/09.

11-01-2017

SIU KIU LAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nelly LOO, etc., et al., Defendants; Morelli Law Firm, PLLC, Nonparty–Appellant.

Morelli Law Firm, PLLC, New York, NY (Benedict P. Morelli of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se.


Morelli Law Firm, PLLC, New York, NY (Benedict P. Morelli of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, and LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, nonparty Morelli Law Firm, PLLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bunyan, J.), dated June 8, 2016, which denied its motion pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474–a for an increased contingency fee award due to extraordinary circumstances.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to its contention, the nonparty-appellant law firm (hereinafter the law firm) failed to demonstrate that its statutory compensation in the sum of $376,198.50 under the Judiciary Law § 474–a(2) schedule was inadequate. The law firm expended approximately 970 hours, that included 9 days of trial, over the course of the 7 ½ years it represented the plaintiffs in this medical malpractice action (cf. Contorino v. Florida Ob/Gyn Assn., 283 A.D.2d 67, 71, 726 N.Y.S.2d 121 ). The record is devoid of any evidence that the amount of time spent on the representation of the plaintiffs resulted in an exceptionally low hourly rate of compensation, or that it caused the law firm any financial detriment (see Yalango v. Popp, 84 N.Y.2d 601, 608–610, 620 N.Y.S.2d 762, 644 N.E.2d 1318 ).

Inasmuch as the law firm failed to make the threshold showing that compensation in this case was inadequate, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether extraordinary circumstances existed.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the law firm's motion pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474–a for an increased contingency fee award (see Yalango v. Popp, 84 N.Y.2d 601, 620 N.Y.S.2d 762, 644 N.E.2d 1318 ).


Summaries of

Lam v. Loo

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 1, 2017
155 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Lam v. Loo

Case Details

Full title:SIU KIU LAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nelly LOO, etc., et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2017

Citations

155 A.D.3d 660 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
155 A.D.3d 660
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 7627

Citing Cases

Ponzo v. Landskowsky

Here, plaintiff's counsel is seeking 25% of the net recovery after the claimed disbursements are deducted, or…

Dondero v. Andrew Sylvester M.D.

Moreover, although counsel asserted that his firm spent hundreds of hours on this case, he failed to provide…