From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP v. Toussie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Nov 19, 2020
188 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

12425 Index No. 651880/19 Case Nos. 2019-05120, 2019-05466

11-19-2020

SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant v. Robert I. TOUSSIE, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent, Laura Toussie et al., Defendants.

Scheyer & Stern, LLC, Nesconset (Patricia A. Stern of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York (Joshua Wurtzel of counsel), for respondent-appellant.


Scheyer & Stern, LLC, Nesconset (Patricia A. Stern of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York (Joshua Wurtzel of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Gische, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered December 5, 2019, awarding plaintiff the total amount of $121,697.85, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 22, 2019, which, inter alia, granted that part of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its account stated claim and denied so much of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim for defendants' failure to pay attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on its account stated claim, as it submitted documentary evidence showing that defendant Robert I. Toussie had "received and retained the invoice[s] without objection" ( Perine Intl. Inc. v. Bedford Clothiers, Inc., 143 A.D.3d 491, 493, 40 N.Y.S.3d 27 [1st Dept. 2016] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Toussie's own written statements refute his argument that plaintiff was unauthorized to represent him, and/or that he had objected to plaintiff's work, when he terminated plaintiff in early October 2018. The termination, which occurred prior to Toussie's receipt of the relevant invoices, was rescinded by Toussie shortly thereafter. Despite regular correspondence between plaintiff and Toussie during the following months, there is no indication that he objected to plaintiff's invoices or continued representation. Moreover, defendants' legal malpractice counterclaims were not sufficiently intertwined with the account stated claim so as to preclude summary judgment (see Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP v. Rose, 111 A.D.3d 453, 454, 974 N.Y.S.2d 422 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 904, 2014 WL 2580086 [2014] ).

The court properly denied plaintiff summary judgment on its breach of contract claim for its fees and costs incurred in bringing the action under the parties' unsigned retainer agreement. While there is no dispute that the retainer agreement was sent to Toussie or that he did not object to its substantive terms, including the fee-shifting clause, there is also no dispute that Toussie did not sign the agreement. Accordingly, a question of fact remains as to whether Toussie agreed to the fee-shifting aspect of plaintiff's engagement.

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP v. Toussie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Nov 19, 2020
188 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP v. Toussie

Case Details

Full title:Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant v. Robert I…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 19, 2020

Citations

188 A.D.3d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 6874
132 N.Y.S.3d 638

Citing Cases

Hebrew Home for aged at Riverdale v. Ginsberg

Plaintiff insists that its invoices establish an account stated,' because plaintiff mailed the invoices to…