You are here: / / THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTORNEY OVERBILLED...
, , ,

THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTORNEY OVERBILLED SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action for breach of contract alleging overbilling by defendant attorney (Drexel) should have survived the motion to dismiss, even though the legal malpractice cause of action was properly dismissed:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have denied that branch of [defendant-attorney] Drexel’s motion which was to dismiss so much of the first breach of contract cause of action as alleged that Drexel overbilled and charged the plaintiff for unnecessary legal services … . In opposition to that branch of Drexel’s motion which was to dismiss the first breach of contract cause of action, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he averred that Drexel double-billed him for legal services in the sum of $291,000 and charged him at least $70,000 for unnecessary legal services. Contrary to Drexel’s contention, the plaintiff’s claim that Drexel overbilled and charged him for unnecessary legal services is distinct from a legal malpractice cause of action, as the plaintiff’s claim does not challenge the quality of Drexel’s work … . Dubon v Drexel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04119, Second Dept 6-30-21

 

You might also like
THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
CALCULATONS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WERE BASED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS RENDERING THE CALCULATIONS HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT SUIT CONCERNING SHARING ATTORNEY’S FEES, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY, AS OPPOSED TO THE ATTORNEY’S FIRM (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THE CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT A SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO WHETHER RESPONDENT FATHER WAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
BUSINESS RECORDS SUBMITTED BY A PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLEGE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY’S RECORD-KEEPING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREPAYMENT BEFORE RETRIEVING PAPER DOCUMENTS WAS JUSTIFIED.
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND 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

THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE WON HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING... THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE...