THE LAW OFFICE OF SHELDON EISENBERGER, plf-res, v. ELAINE BLISKO, def-ap

9840. THE LAW OFFICE OF SHELDON EISENBERGER, plf-res, v. ELAINE BLISKO, def-ap — ______ Carl F. Lodes, Carmel, for ap — SHELDON EISENBERGER, NEW YORK, RESPONDENT PRO SE.—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 12, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, found defendant owed plaintiff law office the principal amount of $83,775.69 in legal fees related to her divorce proceedings, unanimously modified, on the law, to find that the retainer, through its language, terminated upon the commencement of the grounds trial, and remand to the Supreme Court, New York County for recalculation in accordance with this opinion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9840. THE LAW OFFICE OF SHELDON EISENBERGER, plf-res, v. ELAINE BLISKO, def-ap — ______ Carl F. Lodes, Carmel, for ap — SHELDON EISENBERGER, NEW YORK, RESPONDENT PRO SE.—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered March 12, 2012, which, after a nonjury trial, found defendant owed plaintiff law office the principal amount of $83,775.69 in legal fees related to her divorce proceedings, unanimously modified, on the law, to find that the retainer, through its language, terminated upon the commencement of the grounds trial, and remand to the Supreme Court, New York County for recalculation in accordance with this opinion, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, the Law Office of Sheldon Eisenberger (the law office), brought this action seeking legal fees from defendant Elaine Blisko arising from plaintiff’s representation of defendant in her divorce proceedings. On March 13, 2008, Blisko met with Sheldon Eisenberger, the principal of the law office, to discuss the law office’s possible representation of her. Also present at the meeting was a matrimonial attorney not associated with the law office, Patricia Mandel. Eisenberger stated that he asked Mandel to attend the meeting because he does not routinely handle matrimonial actions and wanted her assistance in representing Blisko. At the end of the meeting, Blisko and Eisenberger signed a retainer agreement and a statement of client’s rights and responsibilities. The retainer states that the law office will represent Blisko “in a matrimonial action, including motions and Court appearances up to but not including an actual trial on the matter.” Although the retainer lists the law office’s hourly fee, it does not indicate the hourly fees of any other attorney who would be working on the case, as required.

THE LAW OFFICE OF SHELDON EISENBERGER, plf-res, v. ELAINE BLISKO, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal