Nossen v. Ballinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nossen v. Ballinger

156 A.D.2d 160, 548 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15310

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 160 (Nossen v. Ballinger) 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

Nossen v. Ballinger, 156 A.D.2d 160, 548 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 17, 1988, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 to vacate defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover legal fees and disbursements from defendants for professional services rendered in the amount of $122,502.41. Plaintiff asserts four causes of action for recovery of the legal fees. They are in quantum meruit, an agreement to pay appellant an hourly rate, unjust enrichment and on an account stated. Since plaintiff is not proceeding only under the theory of quantum meruit, where the issue is the reasonableness of the fees, but also pursuant to an agreement to pay an agreed hourly rate, defendants are entitled to a detailed description of legal fees rendered (McLaughlin & Stern, Ballen & Miller v Gottlieb, 52 AD2d 765). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 17, 1988, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 to vacate defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover legal fees and disbursements from defendants for professional services rendered in the amount of $122,502.41. Plaintiff asserts four causes of action for recovery of the legal fees. They are in quantum meruit, an agreement to pay appellant an hourly rate, unjust enrichment and on an account stated. Since plaintiff is not proceeding only under the theory of quantum meruit, where the issue is the reasonableness of the fees, but also pursuant to an agreement to pay an agreed hourly rate, defendants are entitled to a detailed description of legal fees rendered (McLaughlin & Stern, Ballen & Miller v Gottlieb, 52 AD2d 765). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 160, 548 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nossen-v-ballinger-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack