From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenzweig v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 3, 2006
25 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7469.

January 3, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 22, 2005, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on its cause of action for an account stated, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Brauner Baron Rosenzweig Klein, LLP, New York (Howard L. Simon of counsel), for appellant.

Kera Graubard, New York (M. David Graubard of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ., concur.


The record discloses factual issues as to whether there was any underlying relationship between the parties pursuant to which defendant was obligated to pay the legal fees at issue. We note that no written retainer or fee agreement was submitted by plaintiff and it appears that most of the services for which payment is sought by plaintiff were rendered on behalf of a client other than defendant ( see Leboeuf, Lamb, Greene MacRae, L.L.P. v. Worsham, 185 F3d 61; Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft v. Klear, 303 AD2d 204).


Summaries of

Rosenzweig v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 3, 2006
25 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Rosenzweig v. Roth

Case Details

Full title:BRAUNER BARON ROSENZWEIG KLEIN, LLP, Appellant, v. SAMUEL ROTH, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 3, 2006

Citations

25 A.D.3d 333 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 30
805 N.Y.S.2d 829

Citing Cases

Litman v. Hasting

According to Gioiella, defendant insisted that KPMG was obligated to pay for his defense in the criminal…

Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP v. Hasting

According to Gioiella, defendant insisted that KPMG was obligated to pay for his defense in the criminal…