Sprafkin v. Pacific Industries, Inc.

1 Citing case

  1. Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin Frankel v. Aronoff

    638 F. Supp. 714 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that three years of silence after receipt of an invoice "amounts to an implied acquiescence to the stated account" under New York law

    Arrow, Edelstein Gross v. Rosco Productions, 581 F.Supp. 520 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (Cannella, J.). In Sprafkin v. Pacific Industries, Inc., 30 A.D.2d 650, 291 N.Y.S.2d 174, 175 (1st Dep't 1968), the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment in an action by an attorney who sued in quantum meruit for legal services rendered to a client, where the client denied neither hiring the attorney nor the attorney's performing services, but merely denied knowledge of the extent of the attorney's services or their value. The facts here present an even stronger case than Sprafkin v. Pacific Industries, Inc., since Aronoff was informed by Kramer Levin what services were rendered and their value.