Sheiffer v. Shenkman Capital Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheiffer v. Shenkman Capital Management, Inc.

291 A.D.2d 295, 737 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1754

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 295 (Sheiffer v. Shenkman Capital Management, 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

Sheiffer v. Shenkman Capital Management, Inc., 291 A.D.2d 295, 737 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered December 15, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiffs maintain that their client referral fee was not calculated in accordance with the parties’ contract, the motion court correctly concluded that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract (see, e.g., Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566), defendant properly computed the amount of plaintiffs’ referral fee as a percentage only of amounts invested with defendant by investors introduced by plaintiff Sheiffer, and not of all amounts invested in the subject investment fund. Thus, there were no genuine issues of fact to be resolved at trial and the grant of summary judgment to defendants was proper (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). We note in this connection that the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing the disputed subject matter precludes plaintiffs from recovering in quantum meruit (see, Aviv Constr. v Antiquarium, Ltd., 259 AD2d 445, 446, citing Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find [296]*296them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered December 15, 2000, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although plaintiffs maintain that their client referral fee was not calculated in accordance with the parties’ contract, the motion court correctly concluded that, under the unambiguous terms of the contract (see, e.g., Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566), defendant properly computed the amount of plaintiffs’ referral fee as a percentage only of amounts invested with defendant by investors introduced by plaintiff Sheiffer, and not of all amounts invested in the subject investment fund. Thus, there were no genuine issues of fact to be resolved at trial and the grant of summary judgment to defendants was proper (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364). We note in this connection that the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract governing the disputed subject matter precludes plaintiffs from recovering in quantum meruit (see, Aviv Constr. v Antiquarium, Ltd., 259 AD2d 445, 446, citing Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find [296]*296them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 295, 737 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheiffer-v-shenkman-capital-management-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack