Ellenbogen & Goldstein, P.C. v. Brandes

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before SULLIVAN
• Citation: Ellenbogen & Goldstein, P.C. v. Brandes, 641 N.Y.S.2d 28, 226 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 18 April 1996
• Parties: ELLENBOGEN & GOLDSTEIN, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Iris BRANDES, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 28

641 N.Y.S.2d 28

226 A.D.2d 237

ELLENBOGEN & GOLDSTEIN, P.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Iris BRANDES, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

April 18, 1996.

Lenore Kramer, for plaintiff-respondent.

Joel R. Brandes, for defendant-appellant.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, ELLERIN, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

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...