| Miller v Nadler |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01862 [60 AD3d 499] |
| March 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Graubard Miller, Respondent, v Ronald I. Nadler,Appellant. |
—[*1] Graubard Miller, New York (Nancy R. Sills of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered August 10, 2007,which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action seeking payment of legalfees, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its causes of action for an accountstated and for quantum meruit, and directed entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in theprincipal amount of $103,492.44 plus costs and disbursements, and denied defendant's crossmotion for summary judgment dismissing the quantum meruit claim, and order, same court andjustice, entered November 16, 2007, granting defendant's motion to reargue and, uponreargument, adhering to its prior determination, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Plaintiff law firm established entitlement to summary judgment on its claim for an accountstated by production of documentary evidence showing that defendant received and retained theinvoice without objection (see FederalExpress Corp. v Federal Jeans, Inc., 14 AD3d 424 [2005]). Defendant's "self-serving,bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existenceof an account stated" (Darby & Darby v VSI Intl., 95 NY2d 308, 315 [2000]).
Plaintiff also established its claim for quantum meruit by the production of documentaryevidence demonstrating the firm's performance of services in connection with the subjecttransaction, the acceptance of such services, the firm's expectation of payment therefor, and thereasonable value of the services (seee.g. Soumayah v Minnelli, 41 AD3d 390, 391 [2007]).
Plaintiff's failure to comply with the rules on retainer agreements (22 NYCRR 1215.1) doesnot preclude it from suing to recover legal fees for the services it provided (see Egnotovich v Katten Muchin Zavis &Roseman LLP, 55 AD3d 462, 464 [2008]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 63-64 [2007]).[*2]
We have considered defendant's remaining argumentsand find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez, Moskowitz andRenwick, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32476(U).]