Opinion
8202 8203 Index 653698/16
01-24-2019
Richard PU, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Antonio DOW, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Richard Pu, New York, for appellant pro se. The Charrington Firm, PC, Rosedale (Karen H. Charrington of counsel), for respondents.
Richard Pu, New York, for appellant pro se.
The Charrington Firm, PC, Rosedale (Karen H. Charrington of counsel), for respondents.
Sweeny, J.P., Tom, Kahn, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorneys' fees from defendants, because the parties entered into a retainer agreement providing that plaintiff would recover a contingency fee based on the amount, if any, recovered in a rescission action that plaintiff agreed to bring on defendants' behalf, and no amount was recovered in that action (see Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 N.Y.2d 172, 176, 507 N.Y.S.2d 610, 499 N.E.2d 864 [1986] ). Defendants discharged plaintiff after their main claims were dismissed, leaving only meritless claims, which they withdrew after hiring new counsel. Moreover, defendant Antonio Dow paid a substantial amount in settlement of the counterclaims brought against him. Thus, plaintiff was not wrongfully deprived of any fee to which he was entitled under the parties' agreement, and defendants were not unjustly enriched by not paying any fee. Having entered into a valid and enforceable agreement providing for contingent fee recovery only, plaintiff's argument that he is entitled under quasi-contract theories to recover a fee based on his hourly rate is without merit (see generally 2 MG W. 100 LLC v. St. Michael's Prot. Episcopal Church, 127 A.D.3d 624, 626, 8 N.Y.S.3d 299 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.