Balestriere PLLC v. Banxcorp

• Decision Date: 12 June 2012
• Citation: 96 A.D.3d 497,947 N.Y.S.2d 7,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04675
• Parties: BALESTRIERE PLLC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. BANXCORP, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 497

947 N.Y.S.2d 7

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04675

BALESTRIERE PLLC, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.BANXCORP, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

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

June 12, 2012.

Mordechai I. Lipkis, New York, for appellants.

Balestriere PLLC, New York, (John G. Balestriere of counsel), for respondent.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered February 16, 2011, which denied defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, to disqualify plaintiff as its own counsel, and to order that certain confidential or prejudicial matters be sealed or redacted, and for a protective order, modified, on the law, to grant the motion to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for fraudulent inducement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

It is well settled that “[t]he public policy of New York which permits a client to terminate the attorney-client relationship freely at any time, notwithstanding the existence of a particularized retainer agreement between the parties, would be easily undermined if an attorney could hold a client liable for fraud on the theory that the client misrepresented his or her true intent when the retainer was executed” ( Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 557, 444 N.Y.S.2d 55, 428 N.E.2d 387 [1981] ). Accordingly, the motion court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for fraudulent inducement against both the corporate and the individual defendant ( Kaplan v. Heinfling, 136 A.D.2d 34, 39, 526 N.Y.S.2d 73 [1988],lv. denied72 N.Y.2d 810, 534 N.Y.S.2d 938, 531 N.E.2d 658 [1988] ).

The court correctly declined to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), because “[t]he three remedies of an attorney discharged without cause—the retaining lien, the charging lien, and the plenary action in quantum meruit—are not exclusive but cumulative” ( see Levy v. Laing, 43 A.D.3d 713, 715, 843 N.Y.S.2d 542 [2007] ), and the attorney “does not waive her right to commence an immediate plenary action for a judgment against her client by commencing a proceeding to fix the amount of her charging lien” ( Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Gelmin, 235 A.D.2d 218, 219, 651 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1997] ). Moreover, “an attorney may enforce his lien in a court other than that before which his services were rendered” ( see Nickel Rim Mines Ltd. v. Universal–Cyclops Steel Corp., 202 F.Supp. 170, 176 [D.N.J. 1962] ).

Contrary to the dissent's contention, the court also correctly declined to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for quantum meruit pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). Plaintiff alleges that it was terminated without cause by defendants, and received no compensation whatsoever for the three years of work it performed on the case and the value it brought to the case. Specifically, within its complaint, plaintiff pleaded that it “ fully and faithfully performed legal services for BanxCorp and Mehl,” that when it “performed those legal services for BanxCorp and Mehl, it reasonably expected to be compensated for those services,” that “BanxCorp and Mehl encouraged the [plaintiff] to provide them with legal services, participated in the [plaintiff's] provision of such services, and accepted the benefits of the legal services the [plaintiff] provided to them,” and that the services “were rendered under circumstances in which BanxCorp and Mehl knew that the [plaintiff] expected to be compensated for those services.” Since a plaintiff pleads a cause of action for quantum meruit when he alleges that (1) services were performed in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they were rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services ( Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP v. Carucci, 63 A.D.3d 487, 489, 881 N.Y.S.2d 56 [2009];Nabi v. Sells, 70 A.D.3d 252, 252, 892 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2009];Soumayah v. Minnelli, 41 A.D.3d 390, 391, 839 N.Y.S.2d 79 [2007] ), based on the foregoing, plaintiff has adequately pleaded a cause of action for quantum meruit against all the defendants. Fulbright doesn't avail Mehl since there we dismissed plaintiff's cause of action for quantum meruit against the corporate defendant's president insofar as plaintiff in that case failed to allege three elements critical to a cause of action for quantum meruit ( Fulbright at 489, 881 N.Y.S.2d 56).

Defendants' attempt to disqualify plaintiff from representing itself in this fee dispute pursuant to the professional rules regarding conflict of interest is misplaced ( see e.g. Proskauer Rose v. Koeppel, 6 A.D.3d 174, 778 N.Y.S.2d 1 [2004] ). Further, a lawyer “is entitled to reveal the confidences of [a client] in [a] separate fee collection action, albeit only to the extremely limited extent necessary to establish and collect its fees” ( Feeley v. Midas Props., 199 A.D.2d 238, 239, 604 N.Y.S.2d 240 [1993] ). Defendants' vague, general assertions that plaintiff “maliciously pierced their former client BanxCorp's privileged attorney-client confidential information,” are insufficient to establish that plaintiff improperly divulged confidential information necessary to the current litigation.

Similarly, defendants have not identified any specific documents they seek to have sealed or redacted, or established good cause for requesting sealing or redaction ( see22 NYCRR 216.1[a]; Danco Labs. v. Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, 274 A.D.2d 1, 6, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 [2000] ). The documents as to which defendants moved for a protective order are relevant to this litigation, and the request for their production was reasonable ( see Tornheim v. Blue & White Food Prods. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 745, 899 N.Y.S.2d 650 [2010] ).All concur except DeGRASSE, J. who dissents in part in a memorandum as follows:

DeGRASSE, J. (dissenting in part).

The majority correctly concludes that the fraud cause of action should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Indeed, absent an agreement to the contrary, a discharged attorney's recovery, if any, from a former client is limited to quantum meruit ( see Levy v. Laing, 43 A.D.3d 713, 715, 843 N.Y.S.2d 542 [2007] ). I respectfully dissent, however, because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that a quantum meruit claim has been stated against defendant Norbert Mehl under the theory of piercing the corporate veil.

Plaintiff, a law firm, seeks to recover the reasonable value of services it rendered while representing defendant BanxCorp, the plaintiff in ...