Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy & Viener v. Between the Bread East, Inc.

290 A.D.2d 381, 736 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 872
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 381 (Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy & Viener v. Between the Bread East, Inc.) 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
Salans Hertzfeld Heilbronn Christy & Viener v. Between the Bread East, Inc., 290 A.D.2d 381, 736 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about February 7, 2001 and on or about July 5, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first and second causes of action sounding in breach of contract and account stated, and granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated to the extent of referring the matter to a special referee to determine whether defendants had made payment reducing the amount of plaintiff’s claim for attorneys fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court, in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss, properly rejected their contention that the termination of plaintiff law firm’s services relegated plaintiff to recovering in quantum meruit for services rendered to defendants. Termination does not necessarily result in such remedial limitation and, indeed, we have specifically approved recovery by attorneys on an account stated theory for pretermination services billed on an hourly basis at a contractually agreed rate (see, Engel v Cook, 198 AD2d 88, 89; Glazer v Falberg, 85 AD2d 938, 939). We do so again here, in affirming the motion court’s grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiff upon its account stated claim, in view of the uncontradicted showing that plaintiff issued invoices for pretermination legal services billed to defendant at the agreed upon hourly rate, which defendant [382]*382retained without objection (see, Alter & Alter v Cannella, 284 AD2d 138; Fred Ehrlich, P.C. v Tullo, 274 AD2d 303, 304). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Katsky Korins LLP v. Moskovits
2021 NY Slip Op 05815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Stephanie R. Cooper, P.C. v. Robert
78 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
290 A.D.2d 381, 736 N.Y.S.2d 665, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salans-hertzfeld-heilbronn-christy-viener-v-between-the-bread-east-inc-nyappdiv-2002.