Marcano v U-Haul Co. of Va.

Marcano v U-Haul Co. of Va. 2011 NY Slip Op 01704 Decided on March 8, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 8, 2011
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
4456N 14592/02

[*1]Leslie Marcano, et al., Plaintiffs,

v

U-Haul Co. of Virginia, et al., Defendants.



Arthur J. Grosshandler, Nonparty Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Tiger & Daguanno, L.L.P., Nonparty Respondent-Respondent.




Arthur J. Grosshandler, New York, appellant pro se.
Tiger & Daguanno, L.L.P., New York (James E. Daguanno of
counsel for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edgar G. Walker, J.), entered January 6, 2010, which denied appellant outgoing attorney's motion to reject the referee's report recommending the apportionment of 25% of legal fees to him and 75% to respondent incoming counsel, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The referee's findings are supported by the record (see Baker v Kohler, 28 AD3d 375, 375 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 885 [2006]). Plaintiff's subjective satisfaction speaks to the relative quality of the attorneys' services, a relevant factor in apportioning the fee (see Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469 [2009]). The record establishes that appellant's contributions were duly considered by the referee and the court.

We have considered appellant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 8, 2011

CLERK