Berenthal & Associates v. Mechanical Plastics Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berenthal & Associates v. Mechanical Plastics Corp.

288 A.D.2d 143, 733 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11471

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 143 (Berenthal & Associates v. Mechanical Plastics Corp.) 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

Berenthal & Associates v. Mechanical Plastics Corp., 288 A.D.2d 143, 733 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered May 4, 2001, insofar as it denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While defendant maintains that the retainer agreement it has proffered in support of its motion to dismiss, purportedly capping plaintiff law firm’s entitlement to fees for representing defendant in an arbitration, conclusively establishes that plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation from defendant as is alleged in the complaint, the motion court correctly [144]*144held that plaintiffs submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion raise questions as to whether the retainer agreement was in fact timely executed by defendant and delivered to plaintiff. Accordingly, since the proffered retainer agreement cannot on the present state of the record be said to establish defendant’s defense as a matter of law, the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) was properly denied (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Scott v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 180, 182). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lemer, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered May 4, 2001, insofar as it denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While defendant maintains that the retainer agreement it has proffered in support of its motion to dismiss, purportedly capping plaintiff law firm’s entitlement to fees for representing defendant in an arbitration, conclusively establishes that plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation from defendant as is alleged in the complaint, the motion court correctly [144]*144held that plaintiffs submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion raise questions as to whether the retainer agreement was in fact timely executed by defendant and delivered to plaintiff. Accordingly, since the proffered retainer agreement cannot on the present state of the record be said to establish defendant’s defense as a matter of law, the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) was properly denied (see, Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Scott v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 180, 182). Concur — Andrias, J. P., Wallach, Lemer, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 143, 733 N.Y.S.2d 347, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berenthal-associates-v-mechanical-plastics-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack