Stuart v. Trihas

188 Misc. 116, 67 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3284
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 27, 1946·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants, as clients, had the right to terminate plaintiffs’ services, as attorneys, for any reason they saw fit and thereupon plaintiffs were entitled to recover only a sum equal to the reasonable value of the work performed up to the time of discharge, determinable solely on the basis of quantum meruit (Martin v. Camp, 219 N. Y. 170, 174; Robinson v. Rogers, 237 N. Y. 467, 470; Matter of Tillman, 259 N. Y. 133, 135). The refusal of defendants to permit plaintiffs to complete the services was equivalent to a discharge.

The judgment should be reversed, judgment directed for plaintiffs and case remittee! to the court below for determination of the reasonable value of plaintiffs’ services.

Eder and Hecht, JJ., concur in Per Curiam memorandum; McLaughlin, J., dissents.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Stuart v. Trihas, 188 Misc. 116, 67 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

188 Misc. 116 (Stuart v. Trihas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fellner v. Zuckerberg
202 Misc. 122 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1951)
Carter v. Carter
188 Misc. 156 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1946)