Summary
In Buszko, the outgoing law firm represented the plaintiff for “four months” and “prepared and filed a bill of particulars, prepared and filed discovery demands and responses to defendants' discovery demands, obtained plaintiff's medical records, and retained two experts.” 987 N.Y.S.2d at 372.
Summary of this case from Doe v. United StatesOpinion
2014-06-5
Andrzej BUSZKO, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. Slawek W. Platta, PLLC, Nonparty Appellant, v. Lipsig, Shapey, Manus and Moverman, P.C., Nonparty Respondent.
The Platta Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Brian J. Vannella of counsel), for appellant. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
The Platta Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Brian J. Vannella of counsel), for appellant. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, SAXE, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about February 21, 2013, which apportioned attorneys' fees 97.5% to plaintiff's incoming attorneys (nonparty respondent) and 2.5% to his outgoing attorneys (nonparty appellant), unanimously modified, on the facts, to increase appellant's portion to 5% and reduce respondent's portion to 95%, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
During the four months it represented plaintiff, appellant prepared and filed a bill of particulars, prepared and filed discovery demands and responses to defendants' discovery demands, obtained plaintiff's medical records, and retained two experts. Respondent, which represented plaintiff in two stints over the course of several years, performed the lion's share of the work, including representing plaintiff in a General Municipal Law § 50–h hearing, commencing the action by filing and serving a summons and complaint, preparing a summary judgment motion, continuing discovery, and successfully mediating a $3 million settlement in this personal injury action. Under the circumstances, we find that appellant's relative contributions are comparable to the work performed by outgoing counsel in recent matters where an award of 5% or nearly 5% was found appropriate ( see Han Soo Lee v. Riverhead Bay Motors, 110 A.D.3d 436, 436, 972 N.Y.S.2d 240 [1st Dept.2013];Rosado v. Alhati, 109 A.D.3d 753, 972 N.Y.S.2d 17 [1st Dept.2013],lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 864, 986 N.Y.S.2d 18, 9 N.E.3d 368 [2014];Shabazz v. City of New York, 94 A.D.3d 569, 942 N.Y.S.2d 89 [1st Dept.2012] ).