Meltzer v. Harper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meltzer v. Harper

293 A.D.2d 291, 739 N.Y.S.2d 387, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587

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

DecidedApril 9, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 291 (Meltzer v. Harper) 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

Meltzer v. Harper, 293 A.D.2d 291, 739 N.Y.S.2d 387, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 21, 2001, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, and bringing up for review an order which, in an action on a promissory note, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that, since the subject promissory note represents a debt owing for legal services rendered by plaintiff not to defendant but to corporate entities of which he was the principal, he cannot be held personally liable thereon. The note plainly states that legal services were rendered both to defendant and his companies, and that in consideration for plaintiffs reducing his outstanding fees by 20% defendant would pay the reduced amount “either directly or through [his] companies” at a designated closing. Defendant’s claim that such closing never took place, and that his obligation to pay the note therefore never accrued, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to review it. Defendant’s claim that he never signed the note is conclusory and refuted by documentary evidence, and his claim that he agreed to pay plaintiff only $50, not $250, an hour cannot be entertained absent evidence that he objected to plaintiff’s monthly bills within a reasonable time after receiving them (see, Biegen v Paul K. Rooney, P.C., 269 AD2d 264, lv denied 95 NY2d 761). Defendant’s allegations that he was “prodd[ed]” by plaintiff into an unprofitable merger deal fail to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 21, 2001, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, and bringing up for review an order which, in an action on a promissory note, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that, since the subject promissory note represents a debt owing for legal services rendered by plaintiff not to defendant but to corporate entities of which he was the principal, he cannot be held personally liable thereon. The note plainly states that legal services were rendered both to defendant and his companies, and that in consideration for plaintiffs reducing his outstanding fees by 20% defendant would pay the reduced amount “either directly or through [his] companies” at a designated closing. Defendant’s claim that such closing never took place, and that his obligation to pay the note therefore never accrued, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and we decline to review it. Defendant’s claim that he never signed the note is conclusory and refuted by documentary evidence, and his claim that he agreed to pay plaintiff only $50, not $250, an hour cannot be entertained absent evidence that he objected to plaintiff’s monthly bills within a reasonable time after receiving them (see, Biegen v Paul K. Rooney, P.C., 269 AD2d 264, lv denied 95 NY2d 761). Defendant’s allegations that he was “prodd[ed]” by plaintiff into an unprofitable merger deal fail to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. Concur—Williams, P.J., Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 291, 739 N.Y.S.2d 387, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meltzer-v-harper-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack