From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Greenspan Greenspan v. Wenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

01-03379

Submitted April 11, 2002

May 28, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover payment for legal services rendered based on an account stated, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered March 12, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their second cause of action for an account stated and denied the defendant's cross motion for leave to enter a judgment on his counterclaim alleging negligent legal representation upon the plaintiff's default in replying to the counterclaim.

John R. Kelligrew, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Greenspan Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y. (Leon J. Greenspan of counsel), for respondents.

ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their second cause of action for an account stated. The plaintiffs met their burden of establishing that the defendant received and retained the plaintiffs' invoices seeking payment for professional services rendered without objection within a reasonable time (see Ruskin, Moscou, Evans Faltischek v. FGH Realty Credit Corp., 228 A.D.2d 294, 295). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact because he did not submit any written documentation or evidentiary proof to support his claim that he objected to the invoices, and did not provide details concerning the content of the conversations in which he allegedly objected to the bills (see id. at 296; Darby Darby v. VSI Intl., 95 N.Y.2d 308, 315).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's cross motion for leave to enter a judgment on default on his counterclaim alleging negligent legal representation. The plaintiffs offered a reasonable excuse for their delay in replying to the counterclaim and demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (see Jones v. Chuang, 281 A.D.2d 395, 396; Gurreri v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 249 A.D.2d 508).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Greenspan Greenspan v. Wenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 2002
294 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Greenspan Greenspan v. Wenger

Case Details

Full title:GREENSPAN GREENSPAN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. LESLIE WENGER, APPELLANT

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

Date published: May 28, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 875

Citing Cases

Yannelli, Zevin Civardi v. Sakol

The final version of the bill, which reflects a $2,000 increase in the balance due for an "ERROR RE:…

Samara v. Gangemi Gangemi

timony and the submissions thoroughly, I find Mr. Trachtman's testimony credible and the Gangemis' alleged…