Catinella v Mecca & Son Trucking Corp.

Catinella v Mecca & Son Trucking Corp. 2011 NY Slip Op 09576 Decided on December 27, 2011 Appellate Division, Second 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 December 27, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
2011-00445
(Index No. 322/05)

[*1]Nicholas Catinella, plaintiff,

v

Mecca & Son Trucking Corporation, et al., defendants; Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C., nonparty-appellant, David J. DeToffol, Esq., P.C., nonparty-respondent.




Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C. (Berson &
Budashewitz, LLP, New York, N.Y. [Jeffrey A. Berson], of counsel),
nonparty-appellant pro se.
David J. DeToffol, Esq., P.C., New York, N.Y., nonparty-
respondent pro se.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C., the plaintiff's former attorney, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated December 9, 2009, which granted that branch of its motion which was, in effect, for an award of an attorney's fee only to the extent of awarding it an attorney's fee in the sum of $17,500.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This appeal concerns a dispute over the division of a contingency fee between the plaintiff's outgoing and incoming counsel in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court awarded the outgoing counsel an attorney's fee in the sum of $17,500, which amounted to approximately seven percent of the total net contingency fee of $246,476.14.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in determining that outgoing counsel was entitled to $17,500 as its portion of the contingency fee (see Castellanos v CBS Inc., 89 AD3d 499; Diakrousis v Maganga, 61 AD3d 469; Brown v Governele, 29 AD3d 617, 618). The court properly considered the nature of the work performed, the relative contributions of counsel, and, insofar as the record permitted, the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case (see Brown v Governele, 29 AD3d at 618).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and HALL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court