You are here: / / DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY DEMONSTRATED THE RETAINER AGREEMENT IN THE DRUNK-DRIVING...
,

DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY DEMONSTRATED THE RETAINER AGREEMENT IN THE DRUNK-DRIVING AND VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CASE WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY UNCONSCIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-attorney’s motion for summary judgment on the “unconscionable retainer agreement” cause of action should have been granted:

… [D]efendant met his initial burden on the motion by establishing that the retainer agreement is not procedurally unconscionable. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which defendant submitted in support of the motion, demonstrated that plaintiff had ample opportunity to become fully informed about the retainer agreement and to make a meaningful choice about representation. Plaintiff did not dispute in his deposition that, as defendant averred, defendant previously represented plaintiff in relation to a charge of driving while intoxicated for which a similar fixed-fee retainer agreement was used. Indeed, plaintiff admitted that defendant previously represented him at least once. Defendant’s submissions on the motion also established that the retainer agreement here was not presented to plaintiff until nine days after the drunk-driving incident giving rise to the criminal charges against him and several days after plaintiff had been released from the hospital. By that time, plaintiff had been arraigned on the felony complaint, and therefore was aware of the charges of aggravated vehicular homicide against him for the deaths of two persons. Before signing the retainer agreement, plaintiff’s family had contacted at least one other attorney on plaintiff’s behalf, and plaintiff negotiated terms of the agreement with defendant. Furthermore, although defendant submitted plaintiff’s interrogatory answers in which plaintiff stated that he relied on defendant’s statements that defendant had never had a client go to prison and that he would work on plaintiff’s case “24/7,” plaintiff conceded during his deposition that defendant never guaranteed that he would avoid prison and that plaintiff understood defendant’s statements regarding the amount of time defendant would spend on plaintiff’s case to be hyperbole. Divito v Fiandach, 2021 NY Slip Op 07350, Fourth Dept 12-23-21

 

You might also like
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.
No Notice of Claim Requirement for Suit Against Sheriff/Sheriff Can Be Liable for Negligently Training and Supervising Deputies/Whether Sheriff Entitled to Governmental Immunity Cannot Be Decided at the Pleading Stage
DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED ABOUT EIGHT FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE VIOLATING THE COVENANT OR RESTRICTION REQUIRING TEN FEET; PLAINTIFF, AFTER A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, WAS NOT, HOWEVER, ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE RELIEF (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY FEES FOR CASES RETAINED BY AN ATTORNEY WHO LEAVES THE FIRM, DID NOT VIOLATE ETHICS RULES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHICH WAS BEING CHASED BY POLICE AND WHICH FAILED TO OBEY A STOP SIGN; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH 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

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL DID NOT EXPLICITLY RULE ON DEFENDANT’S... THE SUBROGATION ACTION BY THE INSURER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS SLIP AND...