1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 71 A.D.3d
  5. 71 A.D.3d 538 (2010)
 

LADO v. WARDASKA

2401N 16625/04

71 A.D.3d 538 (2010)

895 N.Y.S.2d 826

ARLENE LADO, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. SYLVIA WARDASKA et al., Defendants. ROBERT KAMINSKI, ESQ., Nonparty Appellant-Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided March 18, 2010.

Having analyzed the relevant factors including the amount of time spent by the attorneys on the case, the nature and quality of the work performed and the relative contributions of counsel toward achieving the outcome, the motion court's apportionment of the contingency fee was a provident exercise of discretion (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458 [1989]; Diakrousis v Maganga, 

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