O'Neil v. Brooklyn Savings Bank
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
We appreciate that the result of our decision may seem harsh. The harshness, however, is inherent in the legislation and in the decisions which have construed it. As was said in Rigopoulos v. Kervan (140 F. 2d 506): “ We see no escape from the statutory language.”
Under the circumstances of this case, however, especially in view of the small amount involved and that costs will be awarded to the plaintiff, we think a counsel fee of $100 for services heretofore rendered, in addition to a counsel fee of $50 for services rendered on this appeal, is fair and reasonable. The determination of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rigopoulos v. KervanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
3Cited by9 opinions
- Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'NeilSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Estro Chemical Co. v. FalkNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Garrity v. Bagold Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- Withers v. Herbert McLean Purdy Management Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1944
- Bess v. ToiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.