Legal Opinion
520 East 72nd Commercial Corp. v. 520 East 72nd Owners Corp.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 20, 1988No. 86 Civ. 7581 (MP)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MILTON POLLACK, Senior District Judge.
A contingency fee retainer agreement is challenged by a cooperative corporation as unconscionable, unreasonable and out of all proportion to the value of the legal services rendered, prospectively and retrospectively. For the reasons indicated hereafter, the contingent retainer agreement will be declared null, void and unenforceable and the attorney remitted to a reasonable compensation in quantum meruit.
I. Background
520 East 72nd Street Owners Corp. (“520”) is a cooperative apartment corporation. In 1984 it was converted from its status as a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Hugh L. Carey, Individually and as Governor of the State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- F.H. Krear & Co. v. Nineteen Named TrusteesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Jacobson v. SassowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- West 14th Street Commercial Corp. v. 5 West 14th Owners Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Gair v. PeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Chesley v. Union Carbide Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Alderman v. Pan Am World AirwaysCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Schweizer v. MulvehillDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Edward C. KING, Appellant, v. Lawrence A. FOX, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.