Opinion
92 CA 19-01400
06-11-2021
William TAROLLI and Laurie Tarolli, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JERVIS B. WEBB COMPANY, Defendant, McMahon Kublick, P.C., Appellant.
MCMAHON KUBLICK, P.C., SYRACUSE (W. ROBERT TAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT. SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (JAMES W. CUNNINGHAM OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
MCMAHON KUBLICK, P.C., SYRACUSE (W. ROBERT TAYLOR OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.
SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (JAMES W. CUNNINGHAM OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: This appeal involves a dispute between law firms over attorneys’ fees arising from the legal services provided to plaintiffs in a personal injury action. McMahon Kublick, P.C. (McMahon) appeals from an order that, after a hearing, apportioned McMahon 5 percent of the net contingent attorneys’ fee, and apportioned the remaining 95 percent to Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C. (Smith Sovik), the law firm that represented plaintiffs when the personal injury action was settled.
We reject McMahon's contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in fashioning the award. In fixing the percentages to be awarded to McMahon and Smith Sovik, the court properly considered the amount of time each firm spent on the case, the nature of the work performed, the relative contributions of counsel and the quality of the services rendered (see Cellino & Barnes, P.C. v. York [Appeal No. 2], 170 A.D.3d 1658, 1658-1659, 94 N.Y.S.3d 918 [4th Dept. 2019] ; McCarthy v. Roberts Roofing & Siding Co., Inc. , 45 A.D.3d 1375, 1375-1376, 846 N.Y.S.2d 492 [4th Dept. 2007] ; see generally Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co. , 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570 [1989] ). Contrary to McMahon's further contention, we conclude that Smith Sovik's argument that McMahon was discharged for cause and therefore not entitled to any fees was not frivolous, and thus McMahon is not entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs for having to litigate that issue (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]).