At the time the stenographic services involved herein were rendered, the rule in the Second Department was that an attorney who contracts for stenographic services does so as an agent for a disclosed principal, the client, and, thus, the attorney cannot be held liable for such services where the attorney did not undertake to assume such liability ( see Sullivan v. Greene & Zinner, 283 A.D.2d 420 [2001];Supreme Ct. Reporters, Inc. v. Sirlin, 10 Misc.3d 134 [A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 52099[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2005]; Mantell v. Samuelson, 4 Misc.3d 134[A], 2004 N.Y. Slip Op 50765[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]; Appeal Press & Service Co., Inc. v. Denby, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op 40664[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2001]; cf. Urban Ct. Reporting v. Davis, 158 A.D.2d 401 [1990];General Business Law § 399–cc, eff. Nov. 15, 2005). Since plaintiff failed to establish an issue of fact as to whether defendants had agreed to assume responsibility for the cost of plaintiff's services, the branch of defendants' motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the consolidated action should have been granted.