From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingber v. Pirog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 31, 1991
176 A.D.2d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 31, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Sullivan County (Williams, J.).


Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment for the unpaid balance due from defendants to plaintiffs for certain disbursements and professional services. The documentary proof annexed to plaintiffs' moving papers made out a prima facie case establishing their claim. Plaintiffs rendered professional services to defendants as their attorneys over a long period of time, during which they maintained a running account balance of services rendered and fees owed as well as the disbursements advanced on defendants' behalf. Periodic statements were submitted to defendants and a balance was maintained with debits entered for additional services and credits entered as partial payments by defendants were made. The burden was then on defendants to rebut plaintiffs' claims by evidentiary facts and to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact (see, Milstein v. Montefiore Club, 47 A.D.2d 805). This they failed to do. As Supreme Court noted, while defendants set forth objections to plaintiffs' charges, they did not specify why the charges were improper. Plaintiffs therefore established their entitlement to payment (see, supra; see also, Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Sommer Sommer, 70 A.D.2d 429). Defendants' remaining contentions on this appeal have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Ingber v. Pirog

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 31, 1991
176 A.D.2d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Ingber v. Pirog

Case Details

Full title:JACK S. INGBER et al., Doing Business as INGBER LAGARENNE, Respondents, v…

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

Date published: Oct 31, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Pirog v. Ingber

The Supreme Court acted properly in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the…

O'Connell and Aronowitz v. Gullo

As mentioned, one of plaintiff's causes of action was for an account stated. An attorney can recover under…