Legal Opinion
Goldston v. Bandwidth Technology Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 20, 2006PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered October 7, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary *281judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Among the numerous issues of fact precluding summary judgment are whether the contract was a “general retainer” (Atkins & O’Brien v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 252 AD2d 446, 448 [1998]; cf. Matter of Cooperman, 83 NY2d 465, 476 [1994]) and thus exempt from the rule limiting attorneys to recovery in quantum, meruit (Greenberg v Remick & Co., 230…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Matter of CoopermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Greenberg v. Jerome H. Remick & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Bahar v. SchwartzreichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Palmerton v. Envirogas, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Atkins & O'Brien L. L. P. v. ISS International Service System, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Goldston v. Bandwidth Technology Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006