Law Offices of David J. Sutton, P.C. v. NYC Hallways & Lobbies, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Law Offices of David J. Sutton, P.C. v. NYC Hallways & Lobbies, Inc.

105 A.D.3d 1010, 963 N.Y.S.2d 392

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

DecidedApril 24, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 105 A.D.3d 1010 (Law Offices of David J. Sutton, P.C. v. NYC Hallways & Lobbies, Inc.) 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

Law Offices of David J. Sutton, P.C. v. NYC Hallways & Lobbies, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 1010, 963 N.Y.S.2d 392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, the defendant Nami Shin appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered January 13, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 30, 2011, granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability under an invoice dated March 11, 2011, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the amount of $47,535.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a law firm, demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action to re[1011]*1011cover on an account stated for legal fees by submitting evidence that the appellant received and retained, without objection, the invoices that the plaintiff sent to her seeking payment for professional services rendered (see Pryor & Mandelup, LLP v Sabbeth, 82 AD3d 731, 732 [2011]; Ziskin Law Firm, LLP v Bi-County Elec. Corp., 43 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2007]; Thaler & Gertler v Weitzman, 282 AD2d 522, 523 [2001]). In opposition, the appellant’s unsupported and conclusory allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Ziskin Law Firm, LLP v Bi-County Elec. Corp., 43 AD3d at 1159; Thaler & Gertler v Weitzman, 282 AD2d at 523; Sullivan v REJ Corp., 255 AD2d 308 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability under an invoice dated March 11, 2011.

The appellant’s contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover its legal fees due to an alleged conflict of interest is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and accordingly, has not been considered (see Pauyo v Pauyo, 102 AD3d 847 [2013]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, 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 on an account stated, the defendant Nami Shin appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered January 13, 2012, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 30, 2011, granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability under an invoice dated March 11, 2011, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the amount of $47,535.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a law firm, demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action to re[1011]*1011cover on an account stated for legal fees by submitting evidence that the appellant received and retained, without objection, the invoices that the plaintiff sent to her seeking payment for professional services rendered (see Pryor & Mandelup, LLP v Sabbeth, 82 AD3d 731, 732 [2011]; Ziskin Law Firm, LLP v Bi-County Elec. Corp., 43 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2007]; Thaler & Gertler v Weitzman, 282 AD2d 522, 523 [2001]). In opposition, the appellant’s unsupported and conclusory allegations were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Ziskin Law Firm, LLP v Bi-County Elec. Corp., 43 AD3d at 1159; Thaler & Gertler v Weitzman, 282 AD2d at 523; Sullivan v REJ Corp., 255 AD2d 308 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability under an invoice dated March 11, 2011.

The appellant’s contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover its legal fees due to an alleged conflict of interest is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and accordingly, has not been considered (see Pauyo v Pauyo, 102 AD3d 847 [2013]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 1010, 963 N.Y.S.2d 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/law-offices-of-david-j-sutton-pc-v-nyc-hallways-lobbies-inc-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack