An-Jung v. Rower LLC

2019 NY Slip Op 4652
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 2019
Docket9586 152694/18
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 4652 (An-Jung v. Rower LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
An-Jung v. Rower LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 4652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

An-Jung v Rower LLC (2019 NY Slip Op 04652)
An-Jung v Rower LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 04652
Decided on June 11, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 11, 2019
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gesmer, Kern, Singh, JJ.

9586 152694/18

[*1]Julia An-Jung, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Rower LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants.


Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, LLP, New York (Kenneth M. Labbate of counsel), for appellants.

Michael J. Redenburg, P.C., New York (Michael J. Redenburg of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn III, J.), entered March 12, 2019, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The breach of contract claim should be dismissed in light of defendants' account stated defense (see Mintz & Gold LLP v Daibes, 125 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2015]). The retainer agreement required that objections to bills be raised within 30 days after receipt of the bills; plaintiff timely paid all the bills and did not object to any of them until two months after she received the last one. Moreover, the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed on the ground that it is duplicative of the breach of contract claim "since the claims are premised upon the same facts

and seek identical damages" (Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v Lacher, 115 AD3d 600, 600 [1st Dept 2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 11, 2019

CLERK



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mintz & Gold LLP v. Daibes
125 A.D.3d 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Chowaiki & Co. Fine Art Ltd. v. Lacher
115 A.D.3d 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 4652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/an-jung-v-rower-llc-nyappdiv-2019.