HOLMAN v. CALAMARI


29 Misc.2d 118 (1961)

Davis Holman, Respondent, v. Andrew P. Calamari et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department.

June 7, 1961


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

House Grossman Vorhaus & Hemley (Ray M. Brand of counsel), for appellants. Holman & Holman (Paul E. Fusco of counsel), for respondent.

Concur — HART, BROWN and BENJAMIN, JJ.


Per Curiam.

There are triable issues as to the validity of the contingency agreement for the legal services involved. Should said agreement be upheld, it is our view that plaintiff's compensation should be based upon the market value of the property in question within a reasonable time after the services were completed. If the contingency arrangement is held to be invalid, plaintiff's recovery should be on a quantum meruit basis.

The order granting...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases