| Hirsch v Bashian & Farber, LLP |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09472 [79 AD3d 971] |
| December 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Martin Hirsch, Appellant, v Bashian & Farber, LLP, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Bashian & Farber, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Irving O. Farber of counsel), respondent pro se andfor respondents Gary E. Bashian, P.C., and Gary E. Bashian.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of theSupreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered January 26, 2010, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, an attorney, alleged that in 2006, he referred an estate matter to the defendants andthat pursuant to an oral fee-sharing agreement, the defendants owe him a portion of a fee earned inrepresenting the estate. In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, thedefendants established, prima facie, that the fee-sharing agreement in question was unenforceable underCode of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.12), which was the law in effect atthe time of the conduct at issue (see ParkerWaichman Alonso LLP v Ajlouny, 76 AD3d 961 [2010]; Ford v Albany Med. Ctr.,283 AD2d 843, 845-846 [2001]; Matter of Silverberg [Schwartz], 75 AD2d 817 [1980];see also Excelsior 57th Corp. v Lerner, 160 AD2d 407, 408 [1990]). In opposition, even ifwe were to consider, among other things, the plaintiff's unsworn affirmation (see CPLR 2106;Young Hwan Park v Orellana, 49 AD3d721 [2008]) in addition to the verified complaint (see CPLR 105 [u]), the plaintiff failed toraise a triable issue of fact (cf. Samuel vDruckman & Sinel, LLP, 12 NY3d 205, 210 [2009]; Benjamin v Koeppel, 85NY2d 549, 552, 556 [1995]; Reich v Wolf& Fuhrman, P.C., 36 AD3d 885, 886 [2007]; Weinstein, Chayt & Chase, P.C. v Breitbart, 31 AD3d 753 [2006];Graham v Corona Group Home, 302 AD2d 358, 359 [2003]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986];Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Belenand Roman, JJ., concur.