You are here: / / Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Dischar...

Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged

The plaintiff law firm brought breach of contract cause of action to recover contingency fees under a written retainer agreement.  The motion court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground the law firm had been discharged.  In reversing the motion court, the First Department wrote:

Although no particular formality is required, the discharge of an attorney is effected by “[a]ny act of the client indicating an unmistakable purpose to sever relations . . .”…. The motion should not have been granted because the amended complaint and the documents attached to it set forth no facts from which an unmistakable purpose to sever the attorney-client relationship can be discerned. … A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action “must be denied if from the pleadings’ four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law'” … .  Anderson & Anderson, LLP … v North American Foreign Trade Corp, 2-13 NY Slip Op 03430, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

You might also like
STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF PROPERLY REDACTED FROM HOSPITAL RECORDS; EXPERT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PROPERLY PRECLUDED.
THE SCAFFOLD BRACING BAR OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Court Must Consider Whether Both Parties, Not Only the Bank, Have Negotiated in Good Faith in the Mandatory Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conferences (Re: Possible Modification of the Terms of a Mortgage Subject to Foreclosure)—Under the Totality of the Circumstances, Supreme Court’s Finding that the Bank Did Not Negotiate in Good Faith Was Not Supported
CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
MISNOMER DID NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY; CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
UNDER THE JONES ACT OHIO HAD JURISDICTION TO APPOINT ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WHO ALLEGEDLY DIED OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ON MERCHANT MARINE SHIPS; THE NEW YORK EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE WAS TIMELY AND PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OHIO ADMINISTRATORS (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Governmental Immunity Applied to Preclude Recovery by Bicyclist​ Whether the “Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Pertained to an...