Opinion
2008-1103 S C.
Decided June 29, 2009.
Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered April 8, 2009. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent of granting plaintiff summary judgment on his first cause of action.
Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.
PRESENT: TANENBAUM, J.P., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Plaintiff, an attorney, brought the instant action to recover the balance due for legal services rendered to defendants pursuant to a signed retainer agreement entered into in connection with the state court appeal of a criminal conviction of defendant Victor A. Benavides. Plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment with respect to his first cause of action which sought the sum of $5,376.41, representing unpaid disbursements for the trial transcript, and mailing and filing fees. Defendants contended that they had paid plaintiff $20,000, which was the amount agreed upon, and owed plaintiff nothing more. Moreover, they contended that the retainer agreement was ambiguous and therefore should be construed most strongly against plaintiff, the drafter thereof.
While "public policy dictates that courts pay particular attention to fee arrangements between attorneys and their clients, as it is important that a fee contract be fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by the client" ( Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60), in our opinion, the retainer agreement in the instant case was clear and unambiguous. The agreement specifically stated that, in addition to the attorney's $20,000 legal fee, defendants would "also be responsible for reasonable, necessary expenses pertaining to this action. Disbursements will be charged additionally to the $20,000 legal fee. Disbursements may include cost of court reporter minutes for lower court proceedings, overnight mail fees and court filing fees." These are the very expenses which are now at issue. A person who executes a contract "is presumed to know its contents and to assent to them" ( Moon Choung v Allstate Ins. Co., 283 AD2d 468; see also Holcomb v TWR Express, Inc., 11 AD3d 513). Accordingly, since defendants signed the agreement stating that they would be responsible for these additional expenses, the District Court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment on his first cause of action, and the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
The decision and order of this court entered herein on June 2, 2009 are hereby recalled and vacated ( see motion decided simultaneously herewith).
Tanenbaum, J.P., and Molia J., concur.
Scheinkman, J., taking no part.