Parker Waichman Alonso LLP v Ajlouny
2010 NY Slip Op 06574 [76 AD3d 961]
September 14, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, October 27, 2010


Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Appellant,
v
Paul Ajlounyet al., Respondents.

[*1]Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Arnold E. DiJoseph III of counsel), forappellant.

Paul Ajlouny & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Neil Flynn of counsel), respondent prose and for other respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a fee sharing agreement, the plaintiffappeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Adams, J.), entered March 5, 2009, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summaryjudgment, and granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from with costs.

Each of the parties is either an attorney or a law firm. The plaintiff alleges that the defendantsowe it a portion of a fee from a case which was covered by a fee sharing agreement. An attorneymay not recover a fee that is impermissible under the Code of Professional Responsibility(see Ford v Albany Med. Ctr., 283 AD2d 843, 845 [2001]; Matter of Silverberg[Schwartz], 75 AD2d 817, 819 [1980]; see also Excelsior 57th Corp. v Lerner, 160AD2d 407, 408 [1990]; Schweizer v Mulvehill, 93 F Supp 2d 376 [2000]). Inasmuch asthe record demonstrates that the subject fee sharing agreement herein is unenforceable underCode of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.12), the defendants establishedtheir prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition thereto, the plaintifffailed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' cross motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was forsummary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986];Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; cf. Weinstein, Chayt & Chase, P.C. vBreitbart, 31 AD3d 753 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.