Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v Smirnov

Annotate this Case
Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v Smirnov 2016 NY Slip Op 08296 Decided on December 8, 2016 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 8, 2016
Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, JJ.
2301 156137/12

[*1]Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP formerly known as Davidoff Malito & Hutcher LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Ioori Smirnov, et al., Defendants-Respondents.



Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Joseph N. Polito of counsel), for appellant.

Law Office of Mario DeMarco, P.C., Port Chester (Mario DeMarco of counsel), for respondents.



Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, JHO), entered on or about September 10, 2015, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and JHO, entered September 16, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, awarded plaintiff $27,291.15 in unpaid legal fees and no prejudgment interest, unanimously modified, on the law, to award plaintiff $73,477.98 in unpaid fees, plus prejudgment interest of $28,299.74, for a total award of $101,777.72, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The addition of prejudgment interest to plaintiff's award for unpaid legal fees under quantum meruit was mandatory (see CPLR 5001; Ash & Miller v Freedman , 114 AD2d 823 [1st Dept 1985]). Moreover, where plaintiff was required to seek permission to withdraw, it was required to continue to zealously represent defendants until the court granted its motion to withdraw (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16[d], [e]). Therefore, it was incorrect for the JHO to refuse to consider any value for plaintiff's work from the time it moved by order to show cause to withdraw. This is particularly true where plaintiff sought, but was denied, an adjournment of the trial date, and the court took six months to grant the application.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 8, 2016

CLERK



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.