St. Louis & Westervelt, Inc. v. Giulini

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Louis & Westervelt, Inc. v. Giulini

176 Misc. 2d 99, 673 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 172

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 18, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 Misc. 2d 99 (St. Louis & Westervelt, Inc. v. Giulini) 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

St. Louis & Westervelt, Inc. v. Giulini, 176 Misc. 2d 99, 673 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[100]*100OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment dated September 30,1996 affirmed, with $25 costs.

Under the authority of Urban Ct. Reporting v Davis (158 AD2d 401, 402 [1st Dept]), “an attorney who, on his client’s behalf, obtains goods or services in connection with litigation should be held personally liable unless the attorney expressly disclaims such responsibility”. No such disclaimer was proven in this case (see, S&S Reporting Co. v Grossman, NYLJ, Sept. 18, 1995, at 27, col 2 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Indeed, in his deposition testimony read into evidence, defendant attorney acknowledged his responsibility for the appellate printing and reproduction services in issue. In such circumstances, defendant attorney was liable to plaintiff for these unpaid services.

As to defendant’s claim that the oral contract lacks definiteness as to price, “a price term is not necessarily indefinite because the agreement fails to specify a dollar figure, or leaves fixing the amount for the future, or contains no computational formula” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483, cert denied 498 US 816; see generally, 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, §§ 20, 22). Rather, “a price term may be sufficiently definite if the amount can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties,” such as by reference to an “extrinsic event, commercial practice or trade usage” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483). In this case, the record furnishes a sufficient basis from which to determine a price term based upon the prior course of dealing between the parties for appellate printing/reproduction services which were billed at the same rates.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Freedman, JJ., concur.

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

[100]*100OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment dated September 30,1996 affirmed, with $25 costs.

Under the authority of Urban Ct. Reporting v Davis (158 AD2d 401, 402 [1st Dept]), “an attorney who, on his client’s behalf, obtains goods or services in connection with litigation should be held personally liable unless the attorney expressly disclaims such responsibility”. No such disclaimer was proven in this case (see, S&S Reporting Co. v Grossman, NYLJ, Sept. 18, 1995, at 27, col 2 [App Term, 1st Dept]). Indeed, in his deposition testimony read into evidence, defendant attorney acknowledged his responsibility for the appellate printing and reproduction services in issue. In such circumstances, defendant attorney was liable to plaintiff for these unpaid services.

As to defendant’s claim that the oral contract lacks definiteness as to price, “a price term is not necessarily indefinite because the agreement fails to specify a dollar figure, or leaves fixing the amount for the future, or contains no computational formula” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 483, cert denied 498 US 816; see generally, 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, §§ 20, 22). Rather, “a price term may be sufficiently definite if the amount can be determined objectively without the need for new expressions by the parties,” such as by reference to an “extrinsic event, commercial practice or trade usage” (Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., supra, at 483). In this case, the record furnishes a sufficient basis from which to determine a price term based upon the prior course of dealing between the parties for appellate printing/reproduction services which were billed at the same rates.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Freedman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Misc. 2d 99, 673 N.Y.S.2d 820, 1998 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-westervelt-inc-v-giulini-nyappterm-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack