Kleckner v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleckner v. Levine

12 A.D.2d 788, 209 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 788 (Kleckner v. Levine) 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

Kleckner v. Levine, 12 A.D.2d 788, 209 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against an attorney for an accounting and incidental relief, in which defendant has interposed a counterclaim for an accounting, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 21, 1960, which denied his motion for summary judgment and conditionally granted defendant’s cross motion to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence upon the trial as to the matters alleged in the complaint, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to furnish a bill of particulars pursuant to a demand. Order modified: (1) by striking out its first decretal paragraph denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) by substituting therefor a provision granting such motion to the extent of directing summary judgment in favor of plaintiff for an accounting only; (3) by striking out the second decretal paragraph granting defendant’s cross motion to preclude; and (4) by substituting therefor a provision denying such motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. Where an attorney collects money and retains it, he is bound to render an account thereof to the client when called upon to do so (Matter of Ernst, 54 App. Div. 363). In advance of such account, the client is not required to furnish a bill of particulars (Moore v. Reinhardt, 132 App. Div. 707). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In an action against an attorney for an accounting and incidental relief, in which defendant has interposed a counterclaim for an accounting, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 21, 1960, which denied his motion for summary judgment and conditionally granted defendant’s cross motion to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence upon the trial as to the matters alleged in the complaint, by reason of plaintiff’s failure to furnish a bill of particulars pursuant to a demand. Order modified: (1) by striking out its first decretal paragraph denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) by substituting therefor a provision granting such motion to the extent of directing summary judgment in favor of plaintiff for an accounting only; (3) by striking out the second decretal paragraph granting defendant’s cross motion to preclude; and (4) by substituting therefor a provision denying such motion. As so modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. Where an attorney collects money and retains it, he is bound to render an account thereof to the client when called upon to do so (Matter of Ernst, 54 App. Div. 363). In advance of such account, the client is not required to furnish a bill of particulars (Moore v. Reinhardt, 132 App. Div. 707). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 788, 209 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleckner-v-levine-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack