Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. v. Faro

Full title: FROSS, ZELNICK, LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michael M…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 21, 2014

42 Misc. 3d 151 (N.Y. App. Term 2014)

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50431

986 N.Y.S.2d 865

Opinion

2014-03-21

FROSS, ZELNICK, LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Michael M. FARO a/k/a Mota Faro, Kingridge, LLC and Unorth LLC d/b/a Kingridge, Defendants–Appellants.

PER CURIAM.

Giving due deference to the trial court's detailed factual findings and its negative assessment of the credibility of the individual defendant, we sustain the judgment issued in plaintiff's favor. The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's express findings that plaintiff law firm rendered the legal services contracted for, and that defendants received and retained plaintiff's invoices over a period of five months without proper objection ( see Geron v. DeSantis, 89 AD3d 603 [2011];Stphanie R. Cooper v. Robert, 78 AD3d 572 [2010] ).