Pratt v. Hurley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pratt v. Hurley

2 A.D.2d 983, 157 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 A.D.2d 983 (Pratt v. Hurley) 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

Pratt v. Hurley, 2 A.D.2d 983, 157 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an attorney to recover the reasonable value of his professional services rendered in accordance with an agreement to pay his fee, the appeal is from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The agreement, as evidenced by the letter of appellant McGrinity dated May 29, 1950, was one, terminable at will, to pay respondent for services rendered to Cresa Realty Co., which was a defendant in an action to set aside its deed to real property. A letter of appellant Hurley dated June 24, 1952 notified respondent in unmistakable terms that appellants would not pay for subsequent services. The court erred in ruling that this notice was a nullity. The recovery allowed for services rendered between the time of receipt of such notice and the termination of the litigation in March, 1954, was erroneous. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by an attorney to recover the reasonable value of his professional services rendered in accordance with an agreement to pay his fee, the appeal is from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, entered on a jury verdict in favor of respondent. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The agreement, as evidenced by the letter of appellant McGrinity dated May 29, 1950, was one, terminable at will, to pay respondent for services rendered to Cresa Realty Co., which was a defendant in an action to set aside its deed to real property. A letter of appellant Hurley dated June 24, 1952 notified respondent in unmistakable terms that appellants would not pay for subsequent services. The court erred in ruling that this notice was a nullity. The recovery allowed for services rendered between the time of receipt of such notice and the termination of the litigation in March, 1954, was erroneous. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 983, 157 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-hurley-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack