Bizar & Martin v. U.S. Ice Cream Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
As a matter of public policy, courts pay particular attention to fee arrangements between attorneys and their clients (see, Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172, 176; Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993; Smitas v Rickett, 102 AD2d 928, 929) and the reasonableness of attorney’s fees is always subject to court scrutiny (see, Matter of First Natl. Bank v Brower, 42 NY2d 471; D’Antoni v Ansell, 184 AD2d 678, 680; Reisch & Klar v Sadofsky, 78 AD2d 517). An attorney has the burden of showing that a fee contract is fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by the client (see,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jacobson v. SassowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- First National Bank v. BrowerNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Fasano v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Cohen v. RyanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v. GaneaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- 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
- Byrne v. Hauptman, O'Brien, Wolf & Lathrop, P.C.Nebraska Court of Appeals · 2000
- Cohen Swados Wright Hanifin Bradford & Brett, L. L. P. v. BaygerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.