In re the Estate of Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Davis

259 A.D.2d 366, 687 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2774

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

DecidedMarch 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 366 (In re the Estate of Davis) 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

In re the Estate of Davis, 259 A.D.2d 366, 687 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee Holzman, S.), entered September 11, 1998, which, in a proceeding by petitioner attorney against respondent coexecutors to recover a legal fee, denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and granted respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim of unjust enrichment was properly rejected in view of his concession that his agreement to perform legal services for respondents was made exclusively with respondents’ attorney of record, and that he never spoke with respondents about his fee and was never listed as attorney of record. It is not enough that respondents received a benefit from petitioner’s services; if such were performed at the behest of someone other than respondents, petitioner must look to that person for recovery (Kagan v K-Tel Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County (Lee Holzman, S.), entered September 11, 1998, which, in a proceeding by petitioner attorney against respondent coexecutors to recover a legal fee, denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and granted respondents’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s claim of unjust enrichment was properly rejected in view of his concession that his agreement to perform legal services for respondents was made exclusively with respondents’ attorney of record, and that he never spoke with respondents about his fee and was never listed as attorney of record. It is not enough that respondents received a benefit from petitioner’s services; if such were performed at the behest of someone other than respondents, petitioner must look to that person for recovery (Kagan v K-Tel Entertainment, 172 AD2d 375, 376). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 366, 687 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-davis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack