Best Payphones, Inc. v. Guzov Ofsink, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Best Payphones, Inc. v. Guzov Ofsink, LLC

116 A.D.3d 603, 983 N.Y.S.2d 793

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

DecidedApril 22, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 603 (Best Payphones, Inc. v. Guzov Ofsink, 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

Best Payphones, Inc. v. Guzov Ofsink, LLC, 116 A.D.3d 603, 983 N.Y.S.2d 793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered December 13, 2013, which, inter alla, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, third and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find no authority recognizing the first cause of action, which seeks forfeiture of attorneys’ fees based on defendant’s alleged abandonment of plaintiff. Plaintiffs reliance on Lansky v Easow (304 AD2d 533, 534 [2d Dept 2003]), which decided a motion by an attorney for a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, is misplaced. In any event, the complaint fails to allege any facts that would support a cause of action for forfeiture based on abandonment.

[604]*604The third and fourth causes of action, pleaded in the alternative, for damages resulting from defendant’s alleged abandonment and for forfeiture of unearned legal fees, are merely alternative theories of damages arising out of the breach of contract alleged in the second cause of action. Concur — Tom, J.E, Renwick, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered December 13, 2013, which, inter alla, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, third and fourth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We find no authority recognizing the first cause of action, which seeks forfeiture of attorneys’ fees based on defendant’s alleged abandonment of plaintiff. Plaintiffs reliance on Lansky v Easow (304 AD2d 533, 534 [2d Dept 2003]), which decided a motion by an attorney for a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, is misplaced. In any event, the complaint fails to allege any facts that would support a cause of action for forfeiture based on abandonment.

[604]*604The third and fourth causes of action, pleaded in the alternative, for damages resulting from defendant’s alleged abandonment and for forfeiture of unearned legal fees, are merely alternative theories of damages arising out of the breach of contract alleged in the second cause of action. Concur — Tom, J.E, Renwick, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 603, 983 N.Y.S.2d 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/best-payphones-inc-v-guzov-ofsink-llc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack