Case Name: In the Matter of New York State Urban Development Corporation, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for an Urban Renewal Project Known as 42nd Street Development Project. In the Matter of Arthur Reich, Respondent, v. Joseph Stareshefsky et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-05-25
Citations: 215 A.D.2d 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of New York State Urban Development Corporation, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for an Urban Renewal Project Known as 42nd Street Development Project. In the Matter of Arthur Reich, Respondent, v Joseph Stareshefsky et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 215
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
In the Matter of New York State Urban Development Corporation, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for an Urban Renewal Project Known as 42nd Street Development Project. In the Matter of Arthur Reich, Respondent, v Joseph Stareshefsky et al., Appellants.
[626 NYS2d 799]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered March 4, 1994, which confirmed the report of the Special Referee finding that petitioner had not been discharged by the respondents for cause and was entitled to a charging lien on the proceeds of the underlying condemnation award in the sum of $49,525, and directed the condemnor Urban Development Corporation to pay petitioner this sum from the claimants' funds held in escrow, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the award is reduced to $20,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
We agree with the Special Referee that petitioner was discharged without cause. There is no evidence of any statements of dissatisfaction with counsel's efforts prior to the date of discharge, respondents' testimony at the hearing being conclusory and unsupported. We note that respondents, by their own conduct, prevented the filing of the notice of claim by petitioner. We do find, however, from the evidence before us that the fee awarded by the Referee was excessive and that $20,000 is a more appropriate figure to compensate petitioner for his time and effort. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.