Court Opinion

ID: 9635719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:01:36.438742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:33.911407
License: Public Domain

Pee Cukiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed esentially for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Lynch.
The plaintiffs relied substantially on Koutrakos v. Long Island College Hospital, 78 N. Y. Misc. 2d 39, 355 N. Y. S. 2d 718 (Sup. Ct. 1974) which held, inter alia, that the provision of the New York Workmen’s Compensation Law which provided that in a third party action brought by the injured employee reimbursement was to be made to the workmen’s compensation carrier at no expense (including attorney’s fees) to it, violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Federal and New York Constitutions. It should be noted that the Appellate Division reversed that part of the decision. 47 A. D. 2d 500, 368 N. Y. S. 2d 528 (1975).
In Klacik v. Kovacs, 111 N. J. Super. 307, 311-312 (App. Div. 1970), certif. den. 57 N. J. 237, (1970), Judge Matthews wrote: “In the absence of statute, rule of court or contract, the mere accrual of benefits to a third party does not entitle an attorney to recover any compensation from those benefited.” I-Ie pointed out that there was a diversity of opinion among the states on whether reimbursement of an insurer should be made after deduction of reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in effecting the recovery. He added that “[p]ublic policy here, however, is in equipoise”, but concluded the more equitable rule is to provide for such deduction. This is a far cry *437from holding that the contrary view is so offensive to our public policy that the foreign law should not apply.
Affirmed.