Biaggi v. Local 300, Service Employees International Union

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Biaggi v. Local 300, Service Employees International Union

254 A.D.2d 236, 679 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11419

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 236 (Biaggi v. Local 300, Service Employees International Union) 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

Biaggi v. Local 300, Service Employees International Union, 254 A.D.2d 236, 679 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 14, 1998, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint of plaintiff law firm, alleging, inter.alia, that [237]*237the firm changed its position to its detriment by reason of its retainer agreements with the Union and Welfare Fund defendants, sufficiently states a claim for compensation according to the terms of those retainer agreements, notwithstanding the generally applicable rule that a client may discharge its attorney at will and, in so doing, relegate outgoing counsel to recover in quantum meruit for the value of its services (see, Greenberg v Remick & Co., 230 NY 70; Atkins & O’Brien v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 252 AD2d 446; Ehrlich v Rebco Ins. Exch., 198 AD2d 58). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered May 14, 1998, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint of plaintiff law firm, alleging, inter.alia, that [237]*237the firm changed its position to its detriment by reason of its retainer agreements with the Union and Welfare Fund defendants, sufficiently states a claim for compensation according to the terms of those retainer agreements, notwithstanding the generally applicable rule that a client may discharge its attorney at will and, in so doing, relegate outgoing counsel to recover in quantum meruit for the value of its services (see, Greenberg v Remick & Co., 230 NY 70; Atkins & O’Brien v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 252 AD2d 446; Ehrlich v Rebco Ins. Exch., 198 AD2d 58). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 236, 679 N.Y.S.2d 57, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biaggi-v-local-300-service-employees-international-union-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack