Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Ido Klear

303 A.D.2d 204, 755 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2393
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 11, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 204 (Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Ido Klear) 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
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft v. Ido Klear, 303 A.D.2d 204, 755 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its account stated cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated. Plaintiff has not established that there was an agreement that the individual defendants would be personally liable for the services provided to the corporate defendant (see LeBoeuf Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. v Worsham, 185 F3d 61 [1999]), and there are triable issues with respect to whether a considerable portion of the legal fees incurred was authorized. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Brauner Baron Rosenzweig & Klein, LLP v. Roth
25 A.D.3d 333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
303 A.D.2d 204, 755 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadwalader-wickersham-taft-v-ido-klear-nyappdiv-2003.