Opinion
March 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Palella, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.
We find that plaintiff was requested to perform certain services for clients of the defendant law firm, at the request of defendant, because of plaintiff's expertise in a specialized area of the law, and that he rendered the services. An obligation to pay for these services is therefore imposed by operation of law, even in the absence of an agreement or expression of assent by word or act as to the amount of the fee ( see, Bradkin v Leverton, 26 N.Y.2d 192, 196). Recovery under a theory of quasi contract is not dependent on a promise to pay, and therefore defendant's argument that there was no promise to pay is unpersuasive. Nor can defendant be relieved of this obligation merely because it was the defendant's client who ultimately benefited from the services performed by plaintiff ( see, Farash v. Sykes Datatronics, 59 N.Y.2d 500, 503).
The amount awarded by Special Term reflects the reasonable value of the services performed by plaintiff. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.