Saypol v. McLaughlin

274 A.D. 1052, 86 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 31, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 1052 (Saypol v. McLaughlin) 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
Saypol v. McLaughlin, 274 A.D. 1052, 86 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Opinion

Although interest on a claim for services is ordinarily payable only from the date of demand (Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins. Co., 245 N. Y. 1, 6; Sweeny v. City of New York, 173 N. Y. 414, 416; Mygatt v. Wilcox, 45 N. Y. 306, 310), in this instance prior to the rendition of a bill the client made repeated payments to apply on the attorneys’ contingent fees, which were liquidated in amount by the contingent fee agreements and had become payable by success in the litigation. The attorneys were not obliged to accept the client’s cheek for $4,000 which was offered in full of these as well as of other claims for fees for different professional services unliquidated in amount. Partial summary judgment was correctly granted to respondents on the items included therein, with the exception of the $1,500 note held by plaintiff Leo Kotler individually, that is the subject of the seventh cause of action, which appellant has stated in an answering affidavit was delivered on condition that it would not be enforced until her affairs in connection with her father’s estate were completely settled, and until she had funds available from the estate for its payment. A triable issue was thus presented concerning the seventh cause of action (Smith v. Dotterweich, 200 N. Y. 299), which should be eliminated from the partial summary judgment granted to respondents. Otherwise, the judgment and order appealed from is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D. 1052, 86 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saypol-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-1949.