Donohue v. Minicucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Donohue v. Minicucci

174 A.D.2d 1013, 572 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1013 (Donohue v. Minicucci) 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

Donohue v. Minicucci, 174 A.D.2d 1013, 572 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued defendant for legal services based upon the theory of a joint venture whereby plaintiff and defendant would split the fees equally. At a bench trial, the court determined that there was no joint venture and awarded plaintiff the sum of $13,500 on the basis of quantum meruit. We reverse. The court improperly granted judgment for plaintiff on the theory of quantum meruit. Although CPLR 3017 authorizes the court to grant any type relief even if it is not requested, the relief must be appropriate to the proof. Moreover, relief that is not requested may not be granted where there is substantial prejudice to the adverse party (see, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶3017.06). Plaintiff did not plead a cause of action on the theory of quantum meruit and he did not submit proof of the reasonable value of his services. By not alerting defendant to the issue, plaintiff caused substantial prejudice to defendant by depriving him of the opportunity to submit evidence of the reasonable value of the services. Our reversal of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint does not, however, preclude plaintiff from bringing a new action based on quantum meruit (see, Bialostok v Wolfer, 191 Misc 385). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fallon, J.—Breach of Contract.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued defendant for legal services based upon the theory of a joint venture whereby plaintiff and defendant would split the fees equally. At a bench trial, the court determined that there was no joint venture and awarded plaintiff the sum of $13,500 on the basis of quantum meruit. We reverse. The court improperly granted judgment for plaintiff on the theory of quantum meruit. Although CPLR 3017 authorizes the court to grant any type relief even if it is not requested, the relief must be appropriate to the proof. Moreover, relief that is not requested may not be granted where there is substantial prejudice to the adverse party (see, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶3017.06). Plaintiff did not plead a cause of action on the theory of quantum meruit and he did not submit proof of the reasonable value of his services. By not alerting defendant to the issue, plaintiff caused substantial prejudice to defendant by depriving him of the opportunity to submit evidence of the reasonable value of the services. Our reversal of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint does not, however, preclude plaintiff from bringing a new action based on quantum meruit (see, Bialostok v Wolfer, 191 Misc 385). (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fallon, J.—Breach of Contract.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1013, 572 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donohue-v-minicucci-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack