You are here: / / ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO...

ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined petitioner-attorney was entitled to fees earned in a medical malpractice action prior to the petitioner's suspension and disbarment. Petitioner sought the fees from substitute counsel (DMR) under a quantum meruit theory. Petitioner's failure to file a retainer statement and the absence of a fee-sharing agreement did not preclude quantum meruit recovery:

… [T]he petitioner was not precluded from recovery on the ground that he failed to file a retainer statement with the Office of Court Administration in accordance with 22 NYCRR 691.20(a)(1), since the petitioner did not seek the recovery of fees on a breach of contract theory, but solely on a quantum meruit basis … . The lack of a fee-sharing agreement between the petitioner and DMR also did not preclude the petitioner from seeking the recovery of fees against DMR … . Moreover, the petitioner did not forfeit his right to recover fees for the work he performed in the medical malpractice action prior to his suspension … . Matter of Grossbarth v Dankner, Milstein & Ruffo, P.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 00144, Second Dept 1-10-18

ATTORNEYS (FEES, QUANTUM MERUIT, ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEY'S FEES (QUANTUM MERUIT, ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/RETAINER STATEMENT (ATTORNEY'S FEES,  ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))/FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (ATTORNEY'S FEES,  ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO FEES PURSUANT TO QUANTUM MERUIT DESPITE FAILURE TO FILE A RETAINER STATEMENT AND THE ABSENCE OF A FEE SHARING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
LACROSSE PLAYER JOGGING AROUND LACROSSE FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL.
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONAPPEALING PARTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A PIECE OF WIRE STRUCK HIS EYE WHEN HE WAS USING A NAIL GUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK HE WAS DOING REQUIRED EYE PROTECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RELEVANT INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM FOIL REQUESTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE LOBBY WAS MOPPED WITH A SOAP-LIKE SUBSTANCE AN HOUR BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL AND PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE NOTICED THE FLOOR WAS WET AND SMELLED OF CLEANING FLUID AFTER SHE FELL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence Insufficient to Support Attempted Rape Conviction, Ordering Victim to Take Off Her Clothes, Without More, Was Not Enough
PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEITHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOR THE CITY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR...