Trebatch Lichtenstein Avrutine & Co. v. Goro

• Decision Date: 21 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. 570477/14.,570477/14.
• Citation: 5 N.Y.S.3d 330 (Table)
• Parties: TREBATCH LICHTENSTEIN AVRUTINE AND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-respondent, v. Lois GORO, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term

5 N.Y.S.3d 330 (Table)

TREBATCH LICHTENSTEIN AVRUTINE AND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-respondent
v.
Lois GORO, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 570477/14.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, New York.

Nov. 21, 2014.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Order (Frank P. Nervo, J.), entered November 26, 2013, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Personal jurisdiction was obtained over defendant, a Nassau County resident, pursuant to CCA 404(a)(1), Civil Court's long-arm statute. It is undisputed that defendant's husband retained plaintiff in New York City to render accounting services for defendant, including the preparation of defendant's individual income tax returns; that, subject to the hiring, plaintiff performed services for defendant over the course of several years; that all of the services were rendered by plaintiff at its New York City offices; and that the within action was brought to obtain payment for services rendered by plaintiff in the very matter which formed the basis for his retention. These facts were sufficient to establish that defendant, in person or through her agent, transacted business in New York City (see Fischbarg v. Doucet, 38 AD3d 270 [2007] ; Kasczorowski v. Black and Adams, 293 A.D.2d 358 [2002] ).

Turning to the merits, plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it rendered the requested services on defendant's behalf, mailed itemized bills to defendant, and that defendant received and retained the invoices without objection (see Stephanie R. Cooper, PC v. Robert, 78 AD3d 572, 573 [2010] ; Berkman Bottger & Rodd, LLP v. Moriarty, 58 AD3d 539 [2009] ; Shea & Gould v. Burr, 194 A.D.2d 369 [1993] ). In opposition, defendant did not deny plaintiff's rendition of the services or her own retention without objection of the invoices. Contrary to defendant's principal substantive point, plaintiff, in its efforts to collect on a debt owed directly to it, was not a debt collector governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (see 15 USCA § 1692 [a][6]; United Cos. Lending Corp. v. Candela, 292 A.D.2d 800, 801–802 [2002] ).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER...