Legal Opinion
Pemberton v. Dolphin Development Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 23, 1987PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Casey, J.
The law firm of Oppenheim & Meltzer (hereinafter the firm) commenced the underlying action on behalf of plaintiff, seeking specific performance and damages arising out of defendants’ refusal to convey to plaintiff certain parcels of real property pursuant to a contract between plaintiff and defendants. A notice of pendency was filed in connection with the action. For its representation of plaintiff in this action, the firm was to receive an hourly fee plus a percentage of any recovery as counsel fees. During the course of the litigation, plaintiff and defendants…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fischer-Hansen v. . Bklyn. Heights R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. GlantzNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Imor v. ImorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dagny Management Corp. v. OppenheimAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Oppenheim v. PembertonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Fraguela v. FraguelaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Dagny Management Corp. v. Dolphin Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Monteleon v. MonteleonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.