You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S QUANTUM MERUIT ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES...
,

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY’S QUANTUM MERUIT ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PRECLUDED BY A WRITTEN CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff-attorney’s quantum meruit action for legal services should not have been dismissed. The evidence did not demonstrate the existence of a written contract (which would preclude the quantum meruit action):

“In order to succeed on a cause of action to recover in quantum meruit, the plaintiff must prove (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they were rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services” … . Recovery under the theory of quantum meruit is not appropriate where an express contract governs the subject matter involved … .

“[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . “[A]n unsigned contract may be enforceable, provided there is objective evidence establishing that the parties intended to be bound” … . “In determining whether the parties entered into a contractual agreement and what were its terms, it is necessary to look . . . to the objective manifestations of the intent of the parties as gathered by their expressed words and deeds” … . Gould v Decolator, Cohen & DiPrisco, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 05026, Second Dept 9-22-21

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENTS WERE DOCKETED, THE DEBTOR’S NAME WAS MISSPELLED RENDERING THE LIEN INVALID; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER AN ISSUE OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT BE AVOIDED IF IT HAD BEEN RAISED (SECOND DEPT).
Expert Affidavit Did Not Raise a Question of Fact 
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE EXISTS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ADMITTED WITH COVID, WAS TREATED FOR COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT (SECOND DEPT).
THE POINT AT WHICH LEAVE OF COURT AND THE STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES IS REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THE RETURN DATE FOR THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (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 GRANTOR WAS NOT THE SOLE HEIR OF THE TITLE HOLDER; THEREFORE THE DEED PURPORTING... PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY...