| Fischbarg v Doucet |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05381 [63 AD3d 628] |
| June 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Gabriel Fischbarg, Respondent, v Suzanne Doucet et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 16,2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's failure to provide defendants with a writing identifying the method by which thecontingency fee was to be determined and how expenses were to be paid, in violation of formerCode of Professional Responsibility DR 2-106 (d) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [d]) (now Rules ofProfessional Conduct rule 1.5 [c] [22 NYCRR 1200.5 (c)]), does not preclude his recovery forservices rendered on a quantum meruit basis (see Matter of Santemma v Chasco Co., 242AD2d 273 [1997]). Issues of fact as to plaintiff's right to recovery are raised by the parties'dispute over whether his resignation was justified and whether there existed cause for defendantsto discharge him (see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459, 464 [1996]; Shalom Toy vEach & Every One of Members of N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 239 AD2d 196, 198[1997]).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See2008 NY Slip Op 31979(U).]