Rowe v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rowe v. Levine

16 A.D.2d 808, 228 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741

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

DecidedMay 15, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 808 (Rowe v. Levine) 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

Rowe v. Levine, 16 A.D.2d 808, 228 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by an attorney to recover the agreed compensation for professional services rendered to defendant at the request of the latter, who is also an attorney, in which the defendant, pursuant to permission granted on a prior appeal (Rowe v. Levine, 14 A D 2d 779), interposed a second amended answer containing a repleaded counterclaim for the reasonable value of the use of defendant’s office and office facilities that plaintiff allegedly made without permission for two years after defendant terminated the retainer, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 1961, which dismissed the repleaded counterclaim for patent insufficiency, without leave to amend (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 109, subd. 5). Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss denied, with leave to plaintiff, if he be so advised, to serve a reply to the counterclaim within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the counterclaim states a cause of action against plaintiff. We do not now pass upon any question other than the sufficiency of the counterclaim. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, 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 agreed compensation for professional services rendered to defendant at the request of the latter, who is also an attorney, in which the defendant, pursuant to permission granted on a prior appeal (Rowe v. Levine, 14 A D 2d 779), interposed a second amended answer containing a repleaded counterclaim for the reasonable value of the use of defendant’s office and office facilities that plaintiff allegedly made without permission for two years after defendant terminated the retainer, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 24, 1961, which dismissed the repleaded counterclaim for patent insufficiency, without leave to amend (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 109, subd. 5). Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss denied, with leave to plaintiff, if he be so advised, to serve a reply to the counterclaim within 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the counterclaim states a cause of action against plaintiff. We do not now pass upon any question other than the sufficiency of the counterclaim. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 808, 228 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-levine-nyappdiv-1962.