From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

RAO v. NOFERI

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 24, 1966
50 Misc. 2d 60 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)

Opinion

March 24, 1966

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, MORTON R. TOLLERIS, J.

Martin Elliott Silfen for appellants.

No appearance for respondents.


An attorney has the implied authority to incur and is entitled to be reimbursed for such reasonable expenditures as the diligent prosecution or defense of the lawsuit may require ( Badger v. Celler, 41 App. Div. 599; Regis Radio Corp. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 30 Misc.2d 341; Matter of Lessig, 165 Misc. 706). However, such disbursements are not deemed to include expenditures which are a necessary part or adjunct of a properly equipped lawyer's office ( Matter of Lessig, supra.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, motion for summary judgment granted and case remitted to the court below for an assessment of plaintiffs' damages under CPLR 3212 (subd. [c]).

TILZER, J.P., HOFSTADTER and GOLD, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

RAO v. NOFERI

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 24, 1966
50 Misc. 2d 60 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
Case details for

RAO v. NOFERI

Case Details

Full title:PAUL P. RAO, JR., et al., Appellants, v. LUIGI NOFERI et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 24, 1966

Citations

50 Misc. 2d 60 (N.Y. App. Term 1966)
269 N.Y.S.2d 534

Citing Cases

Brown v. State of New York

(Judiciary Law § 474; but see, Wade v Clemmons, 84 Misc.2d 822.) And, in all cases, an attorney is also…