You are here: / Attorney’s Suit to Recover Fee Dismissed/Failure to Provide Client...

Search Results

/

Attorney’s Suit to Recover Fee Dismissed/Failure to Provide Client Notice Re: Right to Arbitrate/Failure to Comply with 22 NYCRR 1215.1

The Second Department determined an attorney’s suit to recover a fee was properly dismissed because the client was not given notice by certified mail of the client’s right to elect to arbitrate and because the defendant failed to provide a letter of engagement or enter a written retainer agreement with the clent:

Except in limited circumstances, where an attorney institutes an action to recover a fee, the attorney must provide written notice by certified mail or by personal service of the client’s right to elect to arbitrate and must allege in the complaint that the client received notice of his or her right to pursue arbitration and did not file a timely request to arbitrate (see 22 NYCRR 137.6). A plaintiff’s failure to provide the defendant with written notice of his or her right to elect to submit the fee dispute to arbitration, and the failure to allege in the complaint that the defendant received such notice and did not file a timely request for arbitration, require dismissal of the complaint (see Herrick v Lyon, 7 AD3d 571). Here, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint upon finding that the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant with written notice of his right to arbitrate the fee dispute, and upon the plaintiff’s failure to allege in the complaint that the defendant received such notice and did not file a timely request for arbitration… .

In addition, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 1215.1 and failed to establish that he was entitled to recover legal fees in quantum meruit. Except in limited circumstances, an attorney must provide his or her client with a written letter of engagement or enter into a written retainer agreement explaining, inter alia, the scope of the legal services to be provided, the fees to be charged, and the expenses and billing practices (see 22 NYCRR 1215.1). An attorney’s noncompliance with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 does not preclude him or her from recovering the value of professional services rendered on a quantum meruit basis .. . Nonetheless, an attorney who fails to comply with rule 1215.1 bears the burden of proving the terms of the retainer and establishing that the terms of the alleged fee arrangement were fair, fully understood, and agreed to by the client (see id.). Here, the court properly found that the plaintiff failed to comply with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 and failed to establish that the terms of the fee arrangement were fair, fully understood, and agreed to by the defendant. Gary Friedman PC v O’Neill, 2014 NY Slip Op 01711, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ ,

Plaintiff Could Not Rely On Code Provisions Not Mentioned in Plaintiff’s Bill of Particulars to Defeat Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly declned to allow plaintiff to rely on provisions of the Administrative Code which were not included in plaintiff’s bill of particulars.  Plaintiff, in response to defendant’s (16302 Jamaica’s) motion for summary judgment, alleged that plaintiff had violated provisions of the code which required defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, to keep the premises where plaintiff fell safe.  But because the provisions relied upon in response to the summary judgment motion were not the same provisions listed in the bill of particulars, Supreme Court refused to consider them and granted summary judgment to the defendant.

Although the plaintiff contends on appeal that 16302 Jamaica violated other provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York that imposed a statutory duty upon it to make repairs or maintain the premises in a safe condition, the plaintiff, in response to 16302 Jamaica’s demand for a bill of particulars, failed to identify these provisions either in his initial bill of particulars, his first supplemental bill of particulars, or his second supplemental bill of particulars. Thus, 16302 Jamaica was never placed on notice during the course of discovery that the plaintiff would rely upon these additional provisions of the Administrative Code as a predicate for its liability. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to allow the plaintiff to rely on those Administrative Code provisions in opposing 16302 Jamaica’s motion for summary judgment … . Wenzel v 16302 Jamaica Ave LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01744, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ ,

Prosecutor’s Remarks in Summation, in Combination with the Erroneous Admission of Portions of a Recorded Phone Call Made by the Defendant from Jail, Warranted Reversal

In reversing defendant’s conviction, in part, because of the prosecutor’s remarks in summation, the Second Department wrote:

…[C]ertain comments in the prosecutor’s summation were improper, including the comments in which the prosecutor denigrated the defense, vouched for the truthfulness of prosecution witnesses, and shifted the burden of proof to the defense by, inter alia, stating that the defendant had not established reasonable doubt or established that the People’s witnesses were untruthful or engaged in a “conspiracy,” and improperly commented on the defendant’s failure to call a certain witness… .  People v King, 2014 NY Slip Op 01770, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ ,

Police Did Not Have Founded Suspicion of Criminal Activity When Path of Parked Car Was Blocked by Police Vehicle/Suppression of Seized Drugs Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted.  After seeing a man approach the window of a parked car, but without seeing what was exchanged, the police blocked the parked car with the police vehicle, approached and ultimately arrested defendant.  The Second Department determined blocking the path of the parked car was a “stop” and the police did not have a “founded suspicion” of criminal activity at that point:

Although the detective who stopped the defendant’s car was trained in identifying narcotics transactions and was aware of numerous drug transactions in the neighborhood, including some involving car deliveries of drugs, he did not see what the defendant and the pedestrian exchanged, could not see if one of the men gave the other something in return for something else, and did not see money pass between the two men …. Moreover, the detective saw only one exchange … , did not describe any furtive conduct on the part of the two men …, or, indeed, any other conduct that would give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was observing a drug transaction …. The detective’s observations supported only a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” …, which is insufficient to justify the stop of the defendant’s car … . Consequently, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the crack cocaine must be granted. People v Loper 2014 NY Slip Opinion 01771, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ , , , ,

Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that immediate release of an involuntaty patient from a mental health hospital pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus because of the facility’s failure to comply with the Mental Hygiene Law provisions for continued detention was reversible error.  Supreme Court should have conducted an examination into the patient’s alleged disability and detention.  The court discussed the nature and origin of the habeas corpus petition and the relationship between a habeas corpus petition brought under the Mental Hygiene Law and under Article 70 of the CPLR (finding them to be in essence the same). In addition, the Second Department discussed the mootness doctrine which, under certain circumtances, allows an appellate court to hear  a moot case.  The habeas corpus petition here had been rendered moot by the patient’s release:

Generally, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” …. . Typically, “an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits a court to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question … .Here, the release of the patient renders this appeal academic. We nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on this appeal pursuant to the exception to the mootness doctrine because the primary issue raised is an important one which implicates both the patient’s fundamental liberty interest and the State’s interest in protecting the mentally ill, and is one which is likely to recur. Further, the primary issue involved here may typically evade review because “[t]he Mental Hygiene Law contemplates that involuntary hospitalization in a mental health facility is often brief and temporary . . . [and the law] require[s] frequent periodic review of a patient’s status, and the release of the patient unless OMH is granted successive court orders authorizing retention” … . * * *

Here, the patient was initially involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 due to his alleged mental illness and, thereafter, the petition for a writ was filed on the patient’s behalf. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to determine whether the patient was being unlawfully detained (see CPLR 7002[a]… ). Therefore, in order to determine the cause and legality of the patient’s detention, the Supreme Court was required to examine the facts of the patient’s alleged mental disability and detention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15[a], [b]; CPLR 7002). The Supreme Court’s failure to conduct the required examination constitutes reversible error. We note that the Hospital supported its untimely retention application with, inter alia, two certificates from the patient’s treating physicians. In those certificates, the physicians asserted that the patient was paranoid, unable to care for himself, and psychotic. Our determination should not be construed as an approval of the Hospital’s dilatory conduct in filing the retention application. There is no dispute that the Hospital failed to comply with Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. Under the circumstances presented, however, the remedy for such noncompliance is not the immediate release of a patient. We also caution that our reasoning should not be construed to authorize an unlimited violation of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law so as to allow a patient to be involuntarily retained, without a hearing, indefinitely. People v Munsey, 2014 NY Slip Op 01782, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ , ,

Challenge to Environmental Impact Statement Premature/Not Ripe for Adjudication Until the Special Use Permit and Site-Plan Approval (which Precipated the Enviromental Review) Are Issued

The Second Department determined a challenge to finding pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was not ripe.  The environmental review was precipitatied by an application for a special use permit and site-plan approval.  Although the town board had approved the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), the special use permit and site-plan approval were still pending:

An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final (see CPLR 7801[1]). An agency action is final when the decisionmaker arrives at a ” definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … . The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party … .Here, the issuance of a SEQRA findings statement did not inflict injury in the absence of an actual determination of the subject applications for a special use permit and site-plan approval and, thus, the challenge to the adoption of the findings statement is not ripe for adjudication… . Matter of Patel v Board of Trustees of Inc Vil of Muttontown, 2014 NY Slip Op 01756, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiff Arrested Without a Warrant Based Upon Illegally Seized Evidence Granted Summary Judgment in False Arrest/Imprisonment Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his false arrest/imprisonment cause of action. Plaintiff was arrested without an arrest warrant based upon evidence seized in an illegal search:

“In order to prevail on a cause of action seeking to recover damages for false arrest or imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was aware of the resulting confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . ” The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim'” … .When an arrest is made without a warrant, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and a defendant must then show that a factual question exists as to whether the arrest was based on probable cause … . Evidence which is illegally obtained in violation of a plaintiff’s rights may not be used to establish probable cause … . Fakoya v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01709, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ ,

Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Corroborated by Child Abuse Expert/Hearsay Provided Adequate Basis for Finding of Abuse

The Second Department determined Family Court properly ruled that a child’s out-of-court statements were corroborated by a child abuse expert:

A child’s prior out-of-court statements may provide the basis for a finding of abuse, “provided that these hearsay statements are corroborated, so as to ensure their reliability” … . “Any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements . . . shall be sufficient corroboration” (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). Validation testimony from an expert that the child’s psychological and behavioral characteristics lead the expert to conclude that the child was sexually abused may supply the corroboration of the child’s out-of-court statements necessary to make out a prima facie case of sexual abuse … . However, as with any expert opinion, the validation testimony must meet a threshold of reliability … . “The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statements alleging incidents of abuse have been reliably corroborated” … . The Family Court’s credibility findings must be accorded considerable deference on appeal … .Contrary to the father’s contention, the record supports the Family Court’s determination that the testimony of the petitioner’s child sexual abuse expert sufficiently corroborated Alexis S.’s out-of-court disclosures so as to establish a prima facie case of sexual abuse against the father… . Matter of Alexis S 2014 NY Slip Op 01759, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

/ ,

Mother Entitled to Hearing/Children May Be Eligible for Special Immigrant Status

The Second Department reversed Family Court and sent the mother’s custody petition back for a hearing.  The mother alleged father had abandoned the children and the children, due to their immigration status, could be returned to El Salvador where they could be victimized by family and gangs. Mother argued the children could apply for special immigrant status if she were awarded custody:

The Family Court erred in dismissing the petition in which the mother sought orders of custody for her two teenaged children. A natural parent has standing to seek legal custody of his or her child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70[a]; Family Ct Act § 511…). According to the petitioner, the children’s father has abandoned the children and, due to their immigration status, they could be returned to El Salvador where they have been subjected to abuse by family members and threats by gang members. The petitioner has alleged that awarding her custody would be in the best interests of the children, since it would enable the children to apply for special immigrant juvenile status… . Matter of Sanchez v Bonilla, 2014 NY Slip Op 01761, 2nd Dept 3-19-14 

 

/ ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Reformed Settlement Agreement/Criteria for “Mutual Mistake” Not Met

The Second Department determined Supreme Cout should not have found that mutual mistake required reformation of a settlement agreement.  The court explained the operative criteria:

“Marital settlement agreements are judicially favored and are not to be easily set aside” … . Although a mutual mistake by the parties may form the basis for reformation of a marital settlement agreement, “the mistake must be so material that . . . it goes to the foundation of the agreement'” … . “[T]o overcome the heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifested the true intention of the parties, evidence of a very high order is required” … . The party seeking reformation must show clearly and beyond doubt that there has been a mutual mistake, and must show “with equal clarity and certainty the exact and precise form and import that the instrument ought to be made to assume, in order that it may express and effectuate what was really intended by the parties'” … . Hackett v Hackett, 2014 NY Slip Op 01715, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

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