Juste v. New York City Transit Authority
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- PennyMac Corp v. Bongiovanni (New York Supreme Court, Richmond County 2024)
- Guerrero v. Urby LLC (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Boruch v. Rommi Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Lamanna v. Compitiello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Parker Waichman, LLP v. Mauro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Jules v. David (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Robinson & Yablon, P.C. v. Sacco & Fillas, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Rodriguez v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Pyong Woo Ye v. Pasha (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Wodecki v. Vinogradov (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Breidbart v. Wiesenthal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Breidbart v. Wiesenthal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- G.M. Data Corp. v. Potato Farms, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Chiu v. Chiu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- SO/Bluestar, LLC v. Canarsie Hotel Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Mazza v. Marcello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., nonparty Louis C. Fiabane appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.H.O.), dated September 23, 2003, which, after a hearing, awarded him an attorney’s fee in the amount of only $1,116.33.
Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof awarding Louis C. Fiabane $1,176.33 and substituting therefor a provision awarding him $2,500.00; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the appellant payable by the respondent.
An award of a reasonable attorney’s fee is within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court based upon such factors as the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, the skill required to handle the matter, and the effectiveness of the legal work performed (see Ebrahimian v Long Is. R.R., 269 AD2d 488 [2000]; Olson v City of New York, 257 AD2d 653 [1999]). The issue of the apportionment of attorneys’ fees is controlled by the circumstances and equities of each particular case (see Grossman v Grossman, 260 AD2d 602 [1999]), and the Supreme Court is in the best position to assess these factors. Under the facts of this case, however, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in the award of the attorney’s fee to the extent indicated herein (cf. Matter of Gary E. Rosenberg, P.C. v McCormack, 250 AD2d 679 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.