Scheichet & Davis, P. C. v. Steinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scheichet & Davis, P. C. v. Steinger

183 A.D.2d 479, 583 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6786

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

DecidedMay 12, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 479 (Scheichet & Davis, P. C. v. Steinger) 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

Scheichet & Davis, P. C. v. Steinger, 183 A.D.2d 479, 583 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered April 18, 1991, in favor of plaintiff against defendant awarding $13,842.50 inclusive of costs and interest, representing the reasonable value of legal services provided, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Generally, receipt and retention of a law firm’s accounts, without objection within a reasonable time, and an agreement to pay a portion of the indebtedness, gives rise to an account stated (Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen v Edelman, 160 AD2d 626).

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover unpaid legal fees and disbursements in the total sum of $25,942. For purposes of the summary judgment motion, defendant’s claim was sufficient to rebut any inference of an implied agreement to pay the stated amount (Diamond & Golomb v D’Arc, 140 AD2d 183). While defendant did not deny that she was liable to plaintiff for services rendered, she questioned the amount due. Furthermore, plaintiff provided defendant with billing statements which showed a balance due, but which did not recite the nature of the services rendered or the hours expended. A copy of time sheets, coupled with explanations, was provided at the hearing to assess damages. In addition, plaintiff testified that, based on its compilation of hours and costs, plaintiff’s ultimate bill came to $40,063, slightly more than was asserted in its complaint. Thus, sufficient material questions of fact existed to warrant the IAS court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for full summary judgment on the theory of an account stated and to direct a trial to determine the amount due, resulting in a judgment based on the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services (Epstein Reiss & Goodman v Greenfield, 102 AD2d 749). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered April 18, 1991, in favor of plaintiff against defendant awarding $13,842.50 inclusive of costs and interest, representing the reasonable value of legal services provided, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Generally, receipt and retention of a law firm’s accounts, without objection within a reasonable time, and an agreement to pay a portion of the indebtedness, gives rise to an account stated (Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen v Edelman, 160 AD2d 626).

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover unpaid legal fees and disbursements in the total sum of $25,942. For purposes of the summary judgment motion, defendant’s claim was sufficient to rebut any inference of an implied agreement to pay the stated amount (Diamond & Golomb v D’Arc, 140 AD2d 183). While defendant did not deny that she was liable to plaintiff for services rendered, she questioned the amount due. Furthermore, plaintiff provided defendant with billing statements which showed a balance due, but which did not recite the nature of the services rendered or the hours expended. A copy of time sheets, coupled with explanations, was provided at the hearing to assess damages. In addition, plaintiff testified that, based on its compilation of hours and costs, plaintiff’s ultimate bill came to $40,063, slightly more than was asserted in its complaint. Thus, sufficient material questions of fact existed to warrant the IAS court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for full summary judgment on the theory of an account stated and to direct a trial to determine the amount due, resulting in a judgment based on the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services (Epstein Reiss & Goodman v Greenfield, 102 AD2d 749). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 479, 583 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scheichet-davis-p-c-v-steinger-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack