History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rao v. Noferi
50 Misc. 2d 60
N.Y. App. Term.
1966
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

An attorney has the implied authority to incur and is entitled to be reimbursed for such reasonable expenditures as the diligent prosecution or defense of the lawsuit may require (Badger v. Celler, 41 App. Div. 599; Regis Radio Corp. v. American Employers Ins. Co., 30 Misc 2d 341; Matter of Lessig, 165 Misc. 706). However, such disbursements are not deemed to include expenditures which are a necessary part or adjunct of a properly equipped lawyer’s office (Matter of Lessig, supra.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, motion for summary judgment granted and case remitted to the court below for an assessment of plaintiffs’ damages under CPLR 3212 (subd. [c]).

Tilzer, J. P., Hoestadter and Gold, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Case Details

Case Name: Rao v. Noferi
Court Name: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Date Published: Mar 24, 1966
Citation: 50 Misc. 2d 60
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Term.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.