Taddeo v. Medallic Art Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taddeo v. Medallic Art Co.

40 A.D.3d 444, 834 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 444 (Taddeo v. Medallic Art Co.) 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

Taddeo v. Medallic Art Co., 40 A.D.3d 444, 834 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 30, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly construed the ambiguous October 6, 1999 letter against plaintiff attorney, who had drafted it (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]), in finding that he was offering his services as a volunteer, and correctly determined that he had not acquiesced in a May 16, 2004 contingency fee proposal (see Matter of Albrecht Chem. Co. [Anderson Trading Corp.], 298 NY 437 [1949]). In light of the express 1999 agreement, the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims were also not viable (see Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 572 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 30, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly construed the ambiguous October 6, 1999 letter against plaintiff attorney, who had drafted it (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]), in finding that he was offering his services as a volunteer, and correctly determined that he had not acquiesced in a May 16, 2004 contingency fee proposal (see Matter of Albrecht Chem. Co. [Anderson Trading Corp.], 298 NY 437 [1949]). In light of the express 1999 agreement, the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims were also not viable (see Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 572 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 444, 834 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taddeo-v-medallic-art-co-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack