Spano v. Scott
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Where an attorney retained for a specific purpose based on a contract for a noncontingent fee is discharged without cause or withdraws for cause before the completion of the services, the amount of the attorney’s fee must be determined on a quantum meruit basis (Matter of Montgomery, 272 NY 323; Matter of Dunn, 205 NY 398, 402-403; Ventola v Ventola, 112 AD2d 291; Matter of Spellman, 4 AD2d 215, 216). Here, because defendant, an attorney, withdrew for cause, the court properly determined the amount of his fee on the basis of quantum…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dunn v. Hudson River Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
- In Re the Estate of MontgomeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Jordan v. FreemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- McAvoy v. Young HarronAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Ventola v. VentolaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Cass & Sons, Inc. v. Stag's Fuel Oil Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Casper v. Lew Lieberbaum & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Luddy v. OsbornAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- In re the Estate of EhmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.