Schleimer v. McMillan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schleimer v. McMillan

79 Misc. 2d 829, 361 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1762

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 27, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 Misc. 2d 829 (Schleimer v. McMillan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schleimer v. McMillan, 79 Misc. 2d 829, 361 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Judgment unanimously modified by reducing the amount of plaintiff’s recovery by the sum of $202.36, with appropriate interest and costs on the amount due as reduced; as so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

In this suit by plaintiff to recover on a retail installment contract, she is not entitled to attorney’s fees on the buyer’s default where the contract states: 1 ‘ Buyer agrees to pay an attorney’s fee of fifteen (15) percent of the amount due and payable under this contract when same is referred to an attorney, not a salaried employee of the holder, for collection ”.

In the case at bar, the attorney was plaintiff’s husband who was involved in the matter from the very outset, commencing with his credit check of the defendant. We feel that this contract was therefore never “ referred to an attorney” for collection, since he was an integral part of the entire transaction.

Concur: Hogan, P. J., Glickman and McCullough, JJ.

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

Memorandum. Judgment unanimously modified by reducing the amount of plaintiff’s recovery by the sum of $202.36, with appropriate interest and costs on the amount due as reduced; as so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs.

In this suit by plaintiff to recover on a retail installment contract, she is not entitled to attorney’s fees on the buyer’s default where the contract states: 1 ‘ Buyer agrees to pay an attorney’s fee of fifteen (15) percent of the amount due and payable under this contract when same is referred to an attorney, not a salaried employee of the holder, for collection ”.

In the case at bar, the attorney was plaintiff’s husband who was involved in the matter from the very outset, commencing with his credit check of the defendant. We feel that this contract was therefore never “ referred to an attorney” for collection, since he was an integral part of the entire transaction.

Concur: Hogan, P. J., Glickman and McCullough, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Misc. 2d 829, 361 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1974 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schleimer-v-mcmillan-nyappterm-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack