Melendez v. Barbulescu

*421We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in apportioning the legal fees in this case without holding an evidentiary hearing. Both the appellant and the plaintiffs’ current attorney submitted evidence in support of their respective contentions, thereby providing the Supreme Court with an ample basis to render a determination (see, Rondinelli v Yabuki, 224 AD2d 404). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.