Peter A. Dankin, P. C. v. North Shore Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peter A. Dankin, P. C. v. North Shore Partnership

255 A.D.2d 207, 680 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12411

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 207 (Peter A. Dankin, P. C. v. North Shore Partnership) 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

Peter A. Dankin, P. C. v. North Shore Partnership, 255 A.D.2d 207, 680 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Doyle, Spec. Ref.), entered May 5, 1997, in favor of plaintiff attorney and against defendant clients in the amount of $189,307.16, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, and order, same court (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 9, 1997, which denied defendant Vebeliunas’s motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Special Referee’s finding that defendant Vebeliunas had apparent authority to enter into the subject retainer agreement on behalf of the other two defendants (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231). The Statute of Frauds is not in issue because the retainer agreement was in writing, and, given plaintiff’s unrefuted showing that that agreement was fair, reasonable and fully understood by defendants, there is no basis for relegating plaintiff to quantum meruit (see, Matter of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 472-473). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Doyle, Spec. Ref.), entered May 5, 1997, in favor of plaintiff attorney and against defendant clients in the amount of $189,307.16, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, and order, same court (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered July 9, 1997, which denied defendant Vebeliunas’s motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record supports the Special Referee’s finding that defendant Vebeliunas had apparent authority to enter into the subject retainer agreement on behalf of the other two defendants (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 231). The Statute of Frauds is not in issue because the retainer agreement was in writing, and, given plaintiff’s unrefuted showing that that agreement was fair, reasonable and fully understood by defendants, there is no basis for relegating plaintiff to quantum meruit (see, Matter of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 472-473). We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 207, 680 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-a-dankin-p-c-v-north-shore-partnership-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack