From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Icahn v. Icahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 2002
295 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-02748

Submitted April 2, 2002.

June 25, 2002.

In a matrimonial action, Dominic A. Barbara, former attorney for the defendant, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scancarelli, J.), dated October 13, 2000, which denied that branch of his motion which was for prejudgment interest on an award of an attorney's fee, granted by judgment of the same court (Shapiro, J.), entered March 9, 2000, and which purportedly denied that branch of his motion which was for an additional attorney's fee for services rendered in obtaining the award of an attorney's fee.

Dominic A. Barbara, Garden City, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.

William S. Beslow, New York, N.Y., for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and the order is vacated.

The appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion of Dominic A. Barbara, former attorney for the defendant, which was for prejudgment interest on an award of an attorney's fee must be dismissed, as academic, and the order vacated. The judgment entered March 9, 2000, upon which the order was based, has been vacated (see Icahn v. Icahn, 295 A.D.2d 566 [Appellate Division Docket No. 2000-08735, decided herewith]). Further, the Supreme Court did not address that branch of the appellant's motion which was for an additional attorney's fee. Consequently, the appeal from so much of the order as failed to determine that branch of the motion must be dismissed as that branch of the motion remains pending and undecided (see Mahoney v. Mahoney, 272 A.D.2d 303).

The issue of the appellant's entitlement to prejudgment interest will arise again because, although the amount of the attorney's fee sought by the appellant is disputed by the defendant, she clearly owes the appellant a fee. Consequently, we note that the appellant waived his claim for prejudgment interest (see Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v. McCormack, 266 A.D.2d 396).

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Icahn v. Icahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 25, 2002
295 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Icahn v. Icahn

Case Details

Full title:CARL C. ICAHN, plaintiff, v. LIBA ICAHN, respondent. DOMINIC A. BARBARA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 25, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
744 N.Y.S.2d 704

Citing Cases

Roth v. Black Star Publishing

So much of the appeal from the order dated March 15, 2002, which denied that branch of the defendant's motion…

Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians

Accordingly, the cause of action alleging conversion should have been dismissed. The appeal from so much of…