Ellenbogen & Goldstein, P.C. v. Brandes
| Decision Date | 18 April 1996 |
| Citation | 226 A.D.2d 237,641 N.Y.S.2d 28 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | ELLENBOGEN & GOLDSTEIN, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Iris BRANDES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Lenore Kramer, for plaintiff-respondent.
Joel R. Brandes, for defendant-appellant.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, ELLERIN, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered March 15, 1995, in favor of plaintiff law firm and against defendant client in the amount of $112,281.07, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant's retention, without objection, of plaintiff's monthly bills and final bill for the four-and-a-half-month period between its receipt and commencement of this action, along with her payment of portion of the indebtedness, gave rise to an account stated (Shea & Gould v. Burr, 194 A.D.2d 369, 370-371, 598 N.Y.S.2d 261). Defendant's assertions that plaintiff had orally agreed to render legal services without charge, orally advised her to ignore its monthly bills, and knew at the time it sent the bill in issue that defendant had no intention of paying it are conclusory (see, id., at 371, 598 N.Y.S.2d 261), and contradicted by the evidence of an unsatisfied accord between the parties. The validity of the account is not undermined by any understanding the parties may have had at the commencement of their relationship to defer payment until proceeds were realized from plaintiff's efforts (see, Davis Markel & Edwards v. Solomon, 204 A.D.2d 182, 612 N.Y.S.2d 28). While there was clearly an accord that plaintiff would accept defendant's payment of the first $25,000 defendant and her former husband each realized from the sale of the marital residence, it is equally clear that there was no satisfaction, and that plaintiff therefore remains free to sue on its original claim (see, Denburg v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 82 N.Y.2d 375, 383, 604 N.Y.S.2d 900, 624 N.E.2d 995).
Motion seeking to strike portions of brief denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.
...statements could not constitute an account stated because they were not "final bills." He cites Ellenbogen & Goldstein, P.C. v. Brandes, 266 A.D.2d 237, 641 N.Y.S.2d 28 (1st Dep't 1996); Shea & Gould, 194 A.D.2d 369, 598 N.Y.S.2d 261; and Kramer, Levin, 638 F.Supp. 714.6 Whatever merit this......
- In re Clinton Street Food Corp.
-
Frank Felix Associates, Ltd. v. Austin Drugs, Inc.
... ... See Ellenbogen & Goldstein, P.C. v. Brandes, 226 A.D.2d 237, 641 N.Y.S.2d 28, 29 (1st ... ...
-
Spectra Audio Research, Inc. v. 60-86 Madison Ave. Dist. Management Ass'n, Inc.
...acceptance and retention of plaintiff's monthly rent bills, without objection, for five months (see, Ellenbogen & Goldstein v. Brandes, 226 A.D.2d 237, 641 N.Y.S.2d 28, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 806, 654 N.Y.S.2d 716, 677 N.E.2d 288). We have considered and rejected defendant's other ...