Legal Opinion

Migdal, Pollack & Rosenkrantz LLP v. Coleman

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 2004PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*379OPINION OF THE COURT

Edward H. Lehner, J.

The key issue presented on this motion by defendant for summary judgment is whether the arbitration requirements for attorney-client matrimonial fee disputes set forth in part 136 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (the Rules; 22 NYCRR part 100 et seq.) apply when the total fee charged for services rendered in a domestic relations matter exceeds the sum of $100,000, but the amount that may be owing for such services at the time of commencement of a lawsuit to recover for such fees is less than that amount.

In its complaint the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Julien v. MachsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  2. Herrick v. LyonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Paikin v. TsirelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  4. Scordio v. ScordioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Edelman v. PosterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API