Collier, Cohen, Crystal Bock v. MacNamara

30 Citing cases

  1. Mast v. Lane

    745 S.E.2d 56 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    The divergence on the issue is even more apparent considering that different appellate courts in New York have come to different conclusions. See Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v. MacNamara, 237 A.D.2d 152, 655 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1997) (vacating summary judgment in account stated action where there was evidence of an objection to the account rendered and issues concerning the reasonableness of attorney fees remained); O'Connell and Aronowitz v. Gullo, 229 A.D.2d 637, 638, 644 N.Y.S.2d 870, 871 (1996) (“It is not necessary to establish the reasonableness of the [attorney] fee since the client's act of holding the statement without objection will be construed as acquiescence as to its correctness [.]”). Nevertheless, based on the facts of this case, the nature of account stated causes of action, and the fact that a timely objection by defendant to the reasonableness of the attorney fees in question would have prevented the account from becoming stated, we hold that the determination that the account was stated foreclosed the issue concerning the reasonableness of the attorney fees sought to be collected by plaintiff. III. Conclusion

  2. Rosenberg Assoc. v. Candid Litho Printing

    76 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The courts possess the traditional authority "to supervise the charging of fees for legal services under the courts' inherent statutory power to regulate the practice of law" ( Matter of First Natl. Bank of E. Islip v Brower, 42 NY2d 471, 474; see Gair v Peck, 6 NY2d 97, cert denied 361 US 374; Collier, Cohen, Crystal Bock v MacNamara, 237 AD2d 152; Finkelstein v Kins, 124 AD2d 92). In cases involving disputes between attorneys and clients over legal fees, as a matter of public policy, the attorneys have the burden of establishing that their compensation was fair and reasonable ( see Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172, 176; Matter of Bizar Martin v U.S. Ice Cream Corp., 228 AD2d 588, 589; Malamut v Doris L. Sassower, P.C, 111 AD2d 780.]).

  3. Tridee Associates v. Board of Educ. of City

    22 A.D.3d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 10 times

    Those items previously had been billed on other invoices but not paid. The plaintiff admitted that the BOE had objected to some of the items at the time they had been billed ( see Collier, Cohen, Crystal Bock v. MacNamara, 237 AD2d 152). Since there was a dispute as to the amount owed, the account stated cause of action should have been dismissed ( see Erdman Anthony Assoc. v. Barkstrom, 298 AD2d 981, 982).

  4. Reisman, Peirez Reisman v. Haralampoudis

    2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 50560 (N.Y. App. Term 2004)

    Inasmuch as the parties disagree as to whether defendant Demetrios Haralampoudis a/k/a Jim Haralampoudis is liable for the legal fees incurred for plaintiff's representation of James Haralampoudis in an underlying action, there is an issue of fact as to who is liable for said fees. In addition, since courts possess the authority to supervise the charging of fees for legal services ( see Collier, Cohen, Cyrstal Bock v. MacNamara, 237 AD2d 152), based upon our review of the record, we find there is an issue of fact as to the reasonableness of the legal fees plaintiff is seeking to collect. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

  5. Yannelli, Zevin Civardi v. Sakol

    298 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 34 times

    The final version of the bill, which reflects a $2,000 increase in the balance due for an "ERROR RE: PAYMENT," was "vague and cursory" (Goodman, Rakower Agiato v. Liberman, 226 A.D.2d 343, 344, citing Diamond Golomb v. D'Arc, 140 A.D.2d 183; Breed, Abbott Morgan v. Aberdeen Petroleum Corp., 46 A.D.2d 618). There is no proof as to when this bill was first sent to, or received by, the defendant. Assuming that the defendant's proof of her allegedly numerous oral complaints is too vague to be afforded evidentiary value (see generally Darby Darby v. VSI Intl., 95 N.Y.2d 308; Greenspan Greenspan v. Wenger, 294 A.D.2d 539; cf. Jaffe Asher v. Cushing, 289 A.D.2d 17; Marcus Borg Rosenberg Diamond v. Gilber, Seagall Young, 248 A.D.2d 279; Collier, Cohen, Crystal Bock v. MacNamara, 237 A.D.2d 152), there is proof that the defendant also complained, in writing, of the failure to apportion the bill between her and Nieves. The defendant also provided a plausible explanation for the conciliatory tone of certain letters, and for her reluctance to be more direct in expressing her objections. Under all the circumstances presented in this case, we find that there are triable issues of fact with respect to the second cause of action based upon an account stated (see generally Herrick, Feinstein, LLP v. Stamm, 297 A.D.2d 477; Jaffe Asher v. Cushing, supra; Epstein v. Turecamo, 258 A.D.2d 502; Reid Priest v. Realty Asset Group, 250 A.D.2d 380; Legum v. Ruthen, supra). The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

  6. Erdman Anthony Associates v. Barkstrom

    298 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 46 times

    It cannot be used to create liability where none otherwise exists" ( Paladino, Inc. v. Lucchese Son Contr. Corp., 247 A.D.2d 515, 516; see Gurney, Becker Bourne v. Benderson Dev. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 995, 996; Bauman Assoc. v. H M Intl. Transp., 171 A.D.2d 479, 485). Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met its initial burden on its motion by submitting evidentiary proof in admissible form that defendants received and retained plaintiff's invoices without objection within a reasonable time and made partial payments on those invoices ( see King Petroleum Prods. v. Geiger, 231 A.D.2d 906, 906), we conclude that the court properly determined that defendants' oral objections to the purported account stated were sufficient to rebut any inference of an implied agreement to pay the stated amount ( see Collier, Cohen, Crystal Bock v. MacNamara, 237 A.D.2d 152, 152; Construction Mar. Equip. Co. v. Crimmins Contr. Co., 195 A.D.2d 535). Defendants established that they had repeatedly disputed the existence of any agreement to pay fees computed on an hourly basis ( see Bauman Assoc., 171 A.D.2d at 485), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. "If plaintiff can prove an enforceable contract, then it will be able to recover under the first cause of action [for breach of contract]. However, * * * a claim for an account stated may not be utilized simply as another means to attempt to collect under a disputed contract" ( id.).

  7. Jaffe Asher v. Cushing

    289 A.D.2d 17 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach, Marlow, JJ. The motion was properly denied on the ground that an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant orally objected to plaintiff's bills (see, Collier, Cohen, Crystal Bock v. MacNamara, 237 A.D.2d 152). As the motion court noted, defendant set forth ample specifics of her objections, including when and to whom made, as well as circumstances surrounding the retainer and course of representation that tend to explain why the bills were objectionable. As the motion court also noted, defendant's position is further supported by statements plaintiff itself made in support of an interim fee application in the custody proceeding accounting for most of its fee, to the effect that defendant had exhausted all of her resources in defending that action. Defendant promptly moved to vacate her default.

  8. McLaughlin & Stern LLP v. Zaremba

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33282 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    These issues alone are material issues of fact which warrant denying summary judgment (Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP v Model!, 129 A.D.3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2015] [triable issue of fact as to client's consent to amounts due under invoices preclude summary judgment where client had called firm and objected that she did not understand the charges, that they appeared unwarranted, and that she could not pay]; Erdman Anthony & Associates, Inc. v Barkstrom, 298 A.D.2d 981 [4th Dept 2002] [architects' oral objections to purported account stated were sufficient to rebut any inference of implied agreement to pay stated amount to consulting engineering firm]; see also Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v MacNamara, 237 A.D.2d 152 [1st Dept 1997] [on motion for summary judgment, evidence of oral objection, with some specificity, to account rendered is sufficient to rebut any inference of implied agreement to pay stated amount]).

  9. Silverson, Pareres & Lombardi, LLP v. N.Y. Healthcare Ins. Co.

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 34121 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    A plaintiff can establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgement on an account stated claim by producing "documentary evidence showing that defendant received and retained the invoice without objection" (Miller v Nadler, 60 AD3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2009]). In order to defeat summary judgment, a defendant may present "evidence of an oral objection, with some specificity, to [the] account rendered" (Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v MacNamara, 237 AD2d 152, 152 [1st Dept 1997]). However, "self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests [are] insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]). "A key element of a prima facie account stated claim is evidence that [the plaintiff] delivered one or more invoices for the amount claimed to defendant, so that he received them" (Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Kassas, 5 Misc 3d 1012[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51337(U)*1-*2 [Civil Ct, NY County 2004]).

  10. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP v. Cabrera

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31318 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020)

    If Kasowitz were billing for a claim it knew to be meritless, defendant is entitled to prove there should not have been any billing at all (Def. Reply at 2; Johnson v Labode, 23 Misc3d 1122[A], 1122[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50893[U], at *2 [Sup Ct Kings County 2009]). This is particularly true where the record shows it was Kasowitz which precipitated the withdrawal (Counterclaims ¶¶ 97, 98; Morales Aff. ¶ 16; see Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP v Smirnov, 2014 NY Slip Op 31795[U], at *12 [Sup Ct New York County 2014]; Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc., LLC v Candid Litho Print., Ltd., 76 AD3d 510, 510 [2d Dept 2010]; Collier, Cohen, Crystal & Bock v MacNamara, 237 AD2d 152, 152 [1st Dept 1997]).