Duane Morris Llp v. Astor Holdings Inc.
Decision Date | 02 April 2009 |
Docket Number | 228.,229. |
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 02544,61 A.D.3d 418,877 N.Y.S.2d 250 |
Parties | DUANE MORRIS LLP, Respondent-Appellant, v. ASTOR HOLDINGS INC. et al., Appellants-Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.) |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The lack of discovery in this action does not require denial of plaintiff's summary judgment motion as premature (see e.g. Voluto Ventures, LLC v Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, 44 AD3d 557 [2007]). Defendants failed to show that facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were within plaintiff's exclusive knowledge or that discovery might lead to facts relevant to the issues (see id.; Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 270 AD2d 156, 157 [2000]).
The record shows that in December 2003, each defendant signed an agreement with plaintiff, acknowledging that it owed plaintiff a certain sum of money for their legal representation and agreeing to pay it within a certain amount of time. Although defendants contend that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether these agreements were signed under duress, "[r]epudiation of an agreement on the ground that it was procured by duress requires a showing of both (1) a wrongful threat, and (2) the preclusion of the exercise of free will" (Fred Ehrlich, P.C. v Tullo, 274 AD2d 303, 304 [2000]). Here, defendants have admitted that the December 2003 agreements resulted from significant negotiations with plaintiff during which they were represented by separate counsel, and even if plaintiff threatened to cease representing defendants unless it were paid, that is not a wrongful threat (id.). There is no need for discovery as to whether the December 2003 agreements are enforceable, as the existence of a wrongful threat and the overbearing of defendants' free will are both matters within defendants' knowledge.
The affidavit of defendants' principal, which claimed that he orally protested plaintiff's services, does not serve to defeat plaintiff's motion. A client's "self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests [a]re insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]), and defendants do not need discovery as to whether they ever protested plaintiff's bills, since that is also a matter within their own knowledge.
Defendants' contention that the December 2003 agreements cannot form the basis of an account stated because they are not itemized billing statements, is raised for the first time in their reply brief and is not entitled to consideration (see e.g. Meade v Rock-McGraw, Inc., 307 AD2d 156, 159 [2003]). In any event, plaintiff's account stated claims are not based solely on the December 2003 agreements, but also on the detailed billing statements dated from January 2004 through August 2004...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galpern v. De Vos & Co.
...that the client "would not have been prejudiced had her attorney actually withdrawn"); see also Duane Morris LLP v. Astor Holdings Inc., 877 N.Y.S.2d 250, 252 (App. Div., 1st Dep't. 2009) (finding an attorney's threat to cease representation of the client until paid was not unlawful). Where......
-
Cmty. Pres. Corp. v. Wadsworth Condos, LLC
...otherwise supporting the Bobker defendants' defenses. Ehrenhalt v. Kinder, 85 A.D.3d 553 (1st Dep't 2011); Duane Morris LLP v. Astor Holdings Inc., 61 A.D.3d 418 (1st Dep't 2009) ; Voluto Ventures, LLC v. Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, 44 A.D.3d 557 (1st Dep't 2007); Saratoga Assoc.......
-
Sobel v. Ansanelli
...the defendants' invoices are insufficient to state a cause of action to recover damages for duress ( see Duane Morris LLP v. Astor Holdings Inc., 61 A.D.3d 418, 419, 877 N.Y.S.2d 250;Morad v. Morad, 27 A.D.3d 626, 627, 812 N.Y.S.2d 126). The defendants' remaining contentions either are with......
-
Hewett v. LeBlang
...requires a showing of both (1) a wrongful threat, and (2) the preclusion of the exercise of free will.'" Duane Morris LLP v. Astor Holdings Inc., 61 A.D.3d 418, 418-19 (1st Dep't 2009) (emphasis in original) (quoting Fred Ehrlich, P.C. v. Tullo, 274 A.D.2d 303, 304 (1st Dep't 2000)); accord......