Jablonka v. Piasecki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jablonka v. Piasecki

283 A.D. 1085, 131 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391

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

DecidedJune 14, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1085 (Jablonka v. Piasecki) 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

Jablonka v. Piasecki, 283 A.D. 1085, 131 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an attorney to recover a balance alleged to be due under a retainer agreement, defendant appeals from an order granting summary judgment to plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon. It was asserted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion that plaintiff was retained to collect money due defendant, and that defendant’s claim, with respect to which plaintiff’s services were performed, was settled by an agreement to pay the amount due in installments. Defendant contended that the retainer agreement, under which plaintiff was entitled to receive 30% of all amounts recovered by defendant, was amended before the settlement so as to provide that plaintiff should be paid 30% of each installment as it should be received by defendant, and that the action was consequently premature. Plaintiff contended that the retainer agreement was amended, without consideration, after his compensation had been fully earned, and that he had rescinded his voluntary agreement to accept payment in installments, because of defendant’s breach thereof. Order and judgment reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. A triable issue is presented by these conflicting contentions which may not be summarily decided on affidavits. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt, and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by an attorney to recover a balance alleged to be due under a retainer agreement, defendant appeals from an order granting summary judgment to plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon. It was asserted by defendant in opposition to plaintiff’s motion that plaintiff was retained to collect money due defendant, and that defendant’s claim, with respect to which plaintiff’s services were performed, was settled by an agreement to pay the amount due in installments. Defendant contended that the retainer agreement, under which plaintiff was entitled to receive 30% of all amounts recovered by defendant, was amended before the settlement so as to provide that plaintiff should be paid 30% of each installment as it should be received by defendant, and that the action was consequently premature. Plaintiff contended that the retainer agreement was amended, without consideration, after his compensation had been fully earned, and that he had rescinded his voluntary agreement to accept payment in installments, because of defendant’s breach thereof. Order and judgment reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. A triable issue is presented by these conflicting contentions which may not be summarily decided on affidavits. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt, and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1085, 131 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jablonka-v-piasecki-nyappdiv-1954.