From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 23, 2003
308 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1622

September 23, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2003, which granted plaintiff client's motion to compel non-party law firm to remit settlement proceeds, and denied the law firm's cross motion for an increase in its fee pursuant to Judiciary Law § 474-a(4), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Marcy Sonneborn, for plaintiff-respondent.

Vincent J. D'Elia, for non-party appellant.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, JJ.


Upon review of the record, including the law firm's claimed but undocumented expenditures of time, we find that the law firm fails to show that its compensation pursuant to the fee schedule in Judiciary Law § 474-a(2) would be inadequate (see Yalango v. Popp, 84 N.Y.2d 601). We have considered and rejected the law firm's other arguments, and find it unnecessary to address the client's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 23, 2003
308 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Perchuk v. Health Insurance Plan

Case Details

Full title:FLORENCE PERCHUK, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN OF…

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

Date published: Sep 23, 2003

Citations

308 A.D.2d 386 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
764 N.Y.S.2d 621

Citing Cases

Dondero v. Andrew Sylvester M.D.

While the court does not deny such efforts, it cannot deem them extraordinary or excessive for purposes of…