Opinion
2020-01010 Index No. 714513/17
03-22-2023
Otis Llivicura, plaintiff, v. 101 West 78th, LLC, etc., et al., defendants; Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., nonparty-appellant; Shimko Law, P.C., nonparty-respondent.
Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., Mineola, NY (Mark R. Bernstein of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se. Shimko Law, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Daniel S. Shimko of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.
Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., Mineola, NY (Mark R. Bernstein of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se.
Shimko Law, P.C., Brooklyn, NY (Daniel S. Shimko of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P. PAUL WOOTEN LARA J. GENOVESI BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robert J. McDonald, J.), dated September 6, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of nonparty Shimko Law, P.C., which was to determine the apportionment of an award of attorneys' fees to the extent of awarding nonparty Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., the sum of only $40,000 in attorneys' fees.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In August 2016, the plaintiff sustained personal injuries in a workplace accident. He retained Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C. (hereinafter the Sanders firm), to commence this personal injury action on his behalf and to represent him in the action. The plaintiff subsequently discharged the Sanders firm and retained Shimko Law, P.C. (hereinafter the Shimko firm), to represent him in the action. The action was thereafter settled, and the Shimko firm placed the portion of the settlement representing attorneys' fees into an escrow account. In May 2019, the Shimko firm moved, inter alia, to determine the apportionment of the award of attorneys' fees between the two firms. In an order dated September 6, 2019, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the motion to the extent of awarding the Sanders firm the sum of $40,000 in attorneys' fees for the work it performed in the action. The Sanders firm appeals.
"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'" (Wodecki v Vinogradov, 125 A.D.3d 645, 646, quoting Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 N.Y.2d 655, 658; see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458; Ficaro v Alexander, 142 A.D.3d 1043, 1043). Where, as here, an election was not made by the outgoing attorney at the time of discharge, there is a presumption that the attorney has chosen a proportionate share of the contingency fee (see Matter of Cohen v Grainger, Tesoriero & Bell, 81 N.Y.2d at 660; Wodecki v Vinogradov, 125 A.D.3d at 646; Matter of Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v Friedman, Khafif & Assoc., 41 A.D.3d 367, 370). The award of reasonable attorneys' fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the court (see Ficaro v Alexander, 142 A.D.3d at 1043; Ebrahimian v Long Is. R.R., 269 A.D.2d 488, 489).
Here, considering the amount of time spent by the plaintiff's former and current attorneys on this action, the nature of the work performed, and their relative contributions (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d at 459; Ficaro v Alexander, 142 A.D.3d at 1043; Pearse v Delehanty, 105 A.D.3d 1023, 1024), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the Sanders firm was entitled to $40,000 of the attorneys' fees recoverable in the action (see Ficaro v Alexander, 142 A.D.3d at 1044; Wodecki v Vinogradov, 125 A.D.3d at 646).
The Sanders firm's remaining contention is without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WOOTEN, GENOVESI and WARHIT, JJ., concur.