Stamm Law Firm v. Ligotti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stamm Law Firm v. Ligotti

145 A.D.3d 1520, 42 N.Y.S.3d 880

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 2016·Published

Opinion

[1521] Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered May 15, 2015. The order, inter alia, denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion. Contrary to defendant’s contention, an attorney’s failure to comply with the rules for retainer agreements set forth in 22 NYCRR 1215.1 does not preclude that attorney from recovering under the terms of a “ ‘fair, understood, and agreed upon’ ” fee arrangement (Ferst v Abraham, 140 AD3d 581, 582 [2016]; see Frechtman v Gutterman, 140 AD3d 538, 538 [2016]; Chase v Bowen, 49 AD3d 1350, 1350-1351 [2008]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

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

[1521] Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered May 15, 2015. The order, inter alia, denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint. We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied that part of the motion. Contrary to defendant’s contention, an attorney’s failure to comply with the rules for retainer agreements set forth in 22 NYCRR 1215.1 does not preclude that attorney from recovering under the terms of a “ ‘fair, understood, and agreed upon’ ” fee arrangement (Ferst v Abraham, 140 AD3d 581, 582 [2016]; see Frechtman v Gutterman, 140 AD3d 538, 538 [2016]; Chase v Bowen, 49 AD3d 1350, 1350-1351 [2008]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Centra, Lindley, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ.

Stamm Law Firm v. Ligotti, 145 A.D.3d 1520, 42 N.Y.S.3d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

145 A.D.3d 1520 (Stamm Law Firm v. Ligotti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related