Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. v. 388 Broadway Owners LLC

2025 NY Slip Op 32255(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 160801/2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C. v 388 Broadway Owners LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 32255(U) June 24, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 160801/2023 Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. EMILY MORALES-MINERVA PART 42M Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 160801/2023 HERTZ, CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. MOTION DATE 05/20/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant.

-------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-DEFAULT

APPEARANCES:

Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., Forest Hills, NY (Ashley Marie Elenio, Esq., of counsel}, for plaintiff.

EMILY MORALES-MINERVA, J.S.C.

In this action to recover unpaid attorneys' fees, plaintiff

HERTZ, CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C., moves, by notice of motion

(motion seq. no. 001), pursuant to CPLR § 3215, for an order

granting it a default judgment against defendant 388 BROADWAY

OWNERS LLC in the amount of $26,958.38, plus statutory interest

from August 2018. Defendant does not appear or submit

opposition.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 1 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 1] 1 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff HERTZ, CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. {law firm) is

a law firm with offices located at 118-35 Queens Boulevard,

Forest Hills, New York. Defendant 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC

(client) is a domestic limited liability company and the owner

of property located at 388 Broadway, New York, New York

(premises). Law firm contends that, at or around 2018, client

retained its legal services (see New York State Electronic Court

Filing System [NYSCEF] Doc. No. 001, Complaint).

Further, law firm alleges that, thereafter, it rendered

legal services to client from August 2018 through July 2019,

totaling $29,958.38 (see id.; see also NYSCEF Doc. No. 006,

Statement of Account, dated October 31, 2023). Law firm states

that, during its legal representation of client, it mailed

invoices to client every 30 days, but client never paid any

amount toward the invoices. Finally, law firm alleges that

client never objected to the charges set forth in the invoices

(see NYSCEF Doc. No. 001, Complaint). However, client failed to

make any payments to law firm see id.

Consequently, law firm served a Notice of Client's Right to

Arbitrate upon client to no avail see NYSCEF Doc. No. 007,

Notice of Client's Right to Arbitrate a Dispute over Attorneys'

Fees, dated November 23, 2020). Law firm then commenced the

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 2 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 2] 2 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

instant action against client on November 03, 2023, neglecting

to specify any cause of action.

As to a cause of action, the complaint merely states:

"15. [Client] retained [law firm's] legal services.

"16. [Law firm] provided legal services in a Supreme Court matter from August 2018 through July 2019.

"17. In total, [law firm) provided legal services to [client) in the amount of $29,658.38.

"18. [Law Firm) is entitled to judgment in the amount of $26,958.38 plus statutory interest beginning in August 2018."

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 001, Complaint). Defendant failed to answer or

otherwise respond to the complaint.

Thereafter, law firm filed the instant motion (seq. no.

001) seeking an order, granting it leave to enter a default

judgment against client (see CPLR § 3215 [governing default

judgments]). Client neither appeared nor filed a response.

In support of the motion, law firm submits an affidavit of

service of the summons and complaint, reflecting a service date

of December 04, 2023, but a notarization date of January 29,

2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 009); an affirmation of service, dated

February 08, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10); an affidavit of law firm

associate Ashley M. Elenio, Esq., dated February 15, 2024

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 004); a copy of client's deed to the premises

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 3 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 3] 3 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 005); a statement of client's account, dated

October 31, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 006); and an unaddressed

Notice of Client's Right to Arbitrate, dated November 23, 2020

{NYSCEF Doc. No. 007).

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to CPLR § 3215 {a), a plaintiff may seek a

default judgment where a defendant fails to appear, plead, or

proceed to trial. On a motion for leave to enter a default

judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3215, the movant is required to

submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of

the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting

party's default in answering or appearing {see generally CPLR §

3215; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v Austin, 48 AD3d 720, 720 [2d

Dept 2008]).

"CPLR § 3215 does not contemplate that default judgments

are to be rubber-stamped once jurisdiction and a failure to

appear have been shown. Some proof of liability is also

required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of

the uncontested cause of action" (Welz v Brown, 228 AD3d 416,

418 [1st Dept 2024]; Joosten v Gale, 129 AD2d 531, 535 [1st Dept

1987]). While the standard of proof necessary to support an

application for a default judgment is not stringent, some

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 4 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 4] 4 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

firsthand confirmation of the facts forming the basis of the

claim is necessary see Feffer v Malpeso, 210 AD2d 60, 61 [1st

Dept 1994]; see also Resnick v Lebovitz, 28 AD3d 533 [2d Dept

2006] ) .

Here, though untitled, the complaint appears to allege

causes of actions sounding in breach of contract and accounts

stated see generally Kahn v Friedlander, 90 AD2d 868, 869 [3d

Dept 1982] [discussing the requirements of a complaint in the

context of a motion to dismiss a complaint]; but see Nationstar

Mortgage, LLC v Hilpertshauser, 156 AD3d 1052, 1053 [3d Dept

2017] [where a valid cause of action is not stated, "the party

moving for a default judgment is not entitled to the requested

relief, even on default"], quoting Green v Dolphy Constr. Co.

Inc., 187 AD2d 635, 636 [2d Dept 1992]; Resnick, 28 AD3d at 534

[providing that the party seeking default is "required to

demonstrate that they at least had a viable cause of action"]).

To prevail on its breach of contract claim, plaintiff must

establish that (1) a contract exists between the parties; that

(2) plaintiff performed in accordance with the contract; that

(3) defendants breached their contractual obligations; and that

(4) defendants breach resulted in damages (see generally 34-06

73, LLC v Seneca Ins. Co., 39 NY3d 44, 51 [2022] [quotations and

citations omitted] [discussing the standard for a breach of

contract in the context of a pleading]). This standard requires

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 5 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 5] 5 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

the plaintiff to demonstrate "'the essential terms of the

parties' purported contract, including the specific provisions

of the contract upon which liability is predicated'" (Hempel v

Wise, 224 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2024], quoting Matter of Sud v

Sud, 211 AD2d 423, 424 [1st Dept 1995]; see also Harman Becker

Auto. Sys., Inc. v Avnet, Inc., 2025 NY App Div LEXIS 2126, * 4, 2025 NY Slip Op 02157, ** 2 [1st Dept 2025]).

Law firm's submissions fall short of such prima facie

validity. It's complaint merely alleges in a conclusory fashion

that "[client] retained [law firm] to perform legal services on

its behalf" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 001, Complaint; see NYSCEF Doc. No.

004, Affidavit in Support [repeating same conclusory

allegations]). Further, law firm submits no retainer agreement

between law firm and client and submits no supporting facts from

which the court could determine the terms of a contract, if any.

Without specific facts as to a contract or contract terms,

the court has no basis upon which to gauge if plaintiff

performed its part of the bargain, if client breached the

contract, and if plaintiff sustained damages as a result. Not

that law firm alleges anything regarding these prongs for breach

of contract. Here again, the language in the complaint and

supporting papers is conclusory.

The court next addresses law firm's Qlaim sounding in

account stated. "An account stated claim is an account balanced

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 6 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 6] 6 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

and rendered, with an assent to the balance express or implied;

so that the demand is essentially the same as if a promissory

note had been given for the balance" {TH Fashion Ltd. v Vince

Holding Corp., 230 AD3d 1079, 1079 1080 [1st Dept 2024], quoting

Aronson Mayefsky & Sloan, LLP v Praeger, 228 AD3d 182, 185 [1st

Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Such assent may

be "implied where a defendant retains bills without objecting to

them within a reasonable period of time, or makes partial

payment on the account" (Stardom Brands, LLC v S.K.I. Wholesale

Beer Corp., 172 AD3d 1266, 1268 [2d Dept 2019]; Aronson Mayefsky

& Sloan, LLP, 228 AD3d at 185).

However, this cause of action assumes the existence of

some indebtedness between the parties, or an express agreement

to treat a statement of debt as an account stated (see

Dragonetti Bros. Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc. v Verizon

N.Y., Inc., 208 AD3d 1125, 1126 [1st Dept 2022] [holding that an

account stated claim failed because there was no alleged

'"agreement between parties to an account based upon prior

transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the

account items and balance due'"], citing Ryan Graphics, Inc. v

Bailin, 39 AD3d 249, 250 [1st Dept 2007] andinterman Indus.

Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power,37 NY2d 151, 156 [1975] ["no

written instrument" existed 11 by which the defendant .

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 7 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 7] 7 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

expressly obligated itself to make the payments required by the

accounts stated"]).

When, as here, a law firm is asserting an account stated

claim -- it "does not have to establish the reasonableness of

its fee" because the client's act of retaining the invoice

without objection will be considered acquiescence as to its

correctness (Lapidus & Assoc., LLP v Elizabeth St., Inc., 92

AD3d 405, 405 [1st Dept 2012); see also O'Connell & Aronowitz v

Gullo, 229 AD2d 637, 638, [3d Dept 1996) [providing "(a) n

attorney can recover under [a] cause of action (for accounts

stated) with proof that a bill, even if unitemized, was issued

to a client and held by the client without objection for an

unreasonable period of time"], lv denied 89 NY2d 803

[1996); see also Robson & Miller, LLP v Sakow, 121 AD3d 562, 563

[1st Dept 2014) [applying O'Connell, 229 AD2d 637, in the

context of an account stated, to reject a client's argument that

an invoice required supporting information]).

However, like all parties suing on an account stated, law

firm "must establish that it sent invoices to defendant and that

those invoices were received and retained by defendant without

objection made in a reasonable period of time" (23rd St. Berk,

LLC v Journey Flatiron LLC, 2024 NY Misc LEXIS 6707, *4, 2024 NY

Slip Op 51276 [U], **2 [Sup Ct New York County] [G. Lebovits,

J.S.C.], citing Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Brophy,

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 8 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 8] 8 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

19 AD3d 161, 161-162 [1st Dept 2005]; LD Exch., Inc. v Orion

Telcoms. Corp., 302 AD2d 565, 565 [2d Dept 2003]).

Law firm has not provided satisfactory prima facie proof of

these elements. The supporting affidavit of its associate

Ashley M. Elenio attests to being "fully familiar with the facts

and circumstances of this case based upon a review of the file

maintained by my office" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 004, Affidavit of

Merit [emphasis added]). A review of the case file does not

equate to "firsthand knowledge of the facts forming the basis of

the claim" (Guzetti v City of New York, 32 AD3d 234, 236 [1st

Dept 2006]; see also William v N. Shore LIJ Health Sys., 119

AD3d 937 [2nd Dept 2014] [plaintiff failed to proffer affidavit

of the facts by a party with personal knowledge as required by

CPLR § 3215 (f)J}.

Further, and in any event, the associate merely affirms

that "[law firm] sent invoices to [client] every 30 days"

(NYSCEF Doc. No. 004, Affidavit of Merit of Ashley M. Elenio,

Esq.). This statement alone -- even if based on firsthand

knowledge, which is not the case here -- fails to provide

sufficient specificity to satisfactorily establish that law firm

mailed any of the invoices attached to client or that client

received such invoices.

In addition to defects addressed above, law firm provides

insufficient proof of compliance with the additional mailing

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 9of10 Motion No. 001

[* 9] 9 of 10 INDEX NO. 160801/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/25/2025

requirement of CPLR § 3215(g) (4) (ii). The affirmation of

additional mailing provides that the summons was mailed to

client at 2093 Philadelphia Pike, #1105, Claymont, DE 19703,

while the statement of account provides an address of 38 West

32 nd Street New York, New York 10013 for client (see NYSCEF Doc.

No. 10, and Doc. No. 006, providing different addresses for

client). If 2093 Philadelphia Pike, #1105, Claymont, DE 19703

is client's last known address, it is law firm's responsibility

to attest to the same.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (seq. no. 001), pursuant to

CPLR § 3215, for a default judgment, against defendant 388

BROADWAY OWNERS LLC is dismissed without prejudice; and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark the file

accordingly.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

160801/2023 HERTZ CHERSON & ROSENTHAL, P.C. vs. 388 BROADWAY OWNERS LLC Page 10 of 10 Motion No. 001

[* 10] 10 of 10