Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP v. Neuberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP v. Neuberg

137 A.D.3d 1083, 27 N.Y.S.3d 652

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket2015-04247

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1083 (Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP v. Neuberg) 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

Jaspan Schlesinger, LLP v. Neuberg, 137 A.D.3d 1083, 27 N.Y.S.3d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), entered March 23, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging legal malpractice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover payment for legal services rendered by the plaintiff law firm to the defendants, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging legal malpractice, by submitting, inter alia, the parties’ retainer agreement, periodic invoices sent by the plaintiff to the defendants, and the affirmation of its managing partner (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355, 356 [2001]). However, in opposition to the motion, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant David Neuberg and certain documentary evidence which raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff committed legal malpractice in representing the defendants, and as to whether the defendants timely objected to the propriety of certain invoices they received. Under these *1084 circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging legal malpractice, and noted that discovery in the action is necessary (see e.g. Nowacki v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 242 AD2d 265, 266 [1997]; Pastoriza v State of New York, 108 AD2d 605, 607 [1985]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), entered March 23, 2015, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging legal malpractice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover payment for legal services rendered by the plaintiff law firm to the defendants, the plaintiff demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and on an account stated, and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging legal malpractice, by submitting, inter alia, the parties’ retainer agreement, periodic invoices sent by the plaintiff to the defendants, and the affirmation of its managing partner (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Ackerman, 280 AD2d 355, 356 [2001]). However, in opposition to the motion, the defendants submitted the affidavit of the defendant David Neuberg and certain documentary evidence which raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff committed legal malpractice in representing the defendants, and as to whether the defendants timely objected to the propriety of certain invoices they received. Under these *1084 circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, alleging legal malpractice, and noted that discovery in the action is necessary (see e.g. Nowacki v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 242 AD2d 265, 266 [1997]; Pastoriza v State of New York, 108 AD2d 605, 607 [1985]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 1083, 27 N.Y.S.3d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaspan-schlesinger-llp-v-neuberg-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack