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
Defense Counsel’s Conduct Did Not Warrant Setting Aside the Verdict
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE BUT BEFORE THE CLOSING, THE MORTGAGOR STARTED AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUD IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS; THE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT RENDER THE TITLE UNMARKETABLE SUCH THAT THE PURCHASER COULD SET ASIDE THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND HAVE THE DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THE APPELLANT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING MADE A TERRORISTIC THREAT IN VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 490.20; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIAN POPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL; THE DEFENDANT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEEK A STAY PENDING APPEAL; THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, FILED BY THE BANK AT THE OUTSET OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, WAS STILL IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE DID NOT AFFECT THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO A GOOD FAITH PURCHASER AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE (SECOND DEPT).
STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT).
THE VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TIRE SWING IN THE VILLAGE PLAYGROUND; THE VILLAGE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED AN APARTMENT BUILDING HAD THE APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE BUILDING, BUYER WAS A BONA FIDE PURCHASER (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 © 2025 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...