| JSO Assoc., Inc. v Price |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01532 [104 AD3d 737] |
| March 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| JSO Associates, Inc., et al.,Respondents-Appellants, v Edward Price et al.,Appellants-Respondents. |
—[*1] Kreinces & Rosenberg, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Leonard Kreinces and Howard S.Rosenberg of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
In an action to recover in quantum meruit for services rendered, (1) the defendantsappeal from a corrected order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), datedAugust 22, 2011, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to resettle a judgment of the samecourt dated April 12, 2011, to the extent of vacating that judgment and directing anaward of predecision interest and, sua sponte, amended a decision of the same courtdated March 18, 2011, made after a nonjury trial, to the extent of finding that thereasonable value of the plaintiffs' services was $50,000, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal,as limited by their brief, from stated portions of the same corrected order, (2) thedefendants appeal from a judgment of the same court entered September 26, 2011,which, upon the decision dated March 18, 2011, as amended, and upon vacating thejudgment dated April 12, 2011, which had awarded the plaintiffs the principal sum of$75,000 without any award of interest, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against thedefendants Edward Price, Global Trading, Inc., and Congeladora Del Rio, S.A. de C.V.,in the principal sum of $50,000, together with interest at the statutory rate of 9% perannum, from September 12, 2007, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the samejudgment on the ground of inadequacy, and (3) the plaintiffs appeal from an order of thesame court dated July 25, 2011.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 25, 2011, is dismissed, as that orderwas superseded by the corrected order dated August 22, 2011; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal and the cross appeal from the corrected order dated August22, 2011, are dismissed, as the right of direct appeal and cross appeal therefromterminated with the entry of the judgment entered September 26, 2011 (see Matter ofAho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]); and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Sandra Price, as executrix under the lastwill and testament of Arthur Price, deceased, from the judgment entered September 26,2011, is [*2]dismissed, as she is not aggrieved by thatjudgment (see CPLR 5511; Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144 [2010]); and it isfurther,
Ordered that the judgment entered September 26, 2011, is modified, on the law, byincreasing the amount of the award to the plaintiffs to the principal sum of $75,000, plusinterest at the statutory rate of 9% from September 12, 2007; as so modified, thejudgment entered September 26, 2011, is affirmed insofar as appealed from by thedefendants Edward Price, Global Trading, Inc., and Congeladora Del Rio, S.A. de C.V.,and insofar as cross-appealed from by the plaintiffs; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.
In order to recover on a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit, a plaintiff mustdemonstrate "(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of theservices by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensationtherefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services allegedly rendered" (Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. vGritsipis, 87 AD3d 216, 222 [2011]). Here, after a nonjury trial, the SupremeCourt found that the plaintiffs performed services for the defendants Edward Price,Global Trading Inc., and Congeladora Del Rio, S.A. de C.V. (hereinafter collectively thedefendants) in good faith by assisting in the negotiation and consummation of the sale ofcertain business interests to a nonparty with an expectation of compensation, that thedefendants accepted those services, and that the reasonable value of those services was$75,000. The Supreme Court's findings were supported by the record (see Marjam Supply Co., Inc. v AllCraft Fabricators, Inc., 94 AD3d 954, 955 [2012]).
"Pursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order orjudgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial rightof a party, or is inconsistent with the decision upon which it is based. However, a trialcourt has no revisory or appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte, to vacate its own order orjudgment" (Adams vFellingham, 52 AD3d 443, 444 [2008] [citations omitted]). Accordingly, upongranting the plaintiffs' motion to resettle a judgment dated April 12, 2011, to the extentof vacating that judgment and directing an award of predecision interest, the SupremeCourt erred in, sua sponte, amending its decision dated March 18, 2011, so as to find thatthe reasonable value of the plaintiffs' services was only $50,000.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in lightof our determination. Mastro, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.