Legal Opinion
Roth Law Firm, PLLC v. Sands
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 31, 2011PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*676Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the letter of engagement rule (22 NYCRR 1215.1) does not preclude it from seeking recovery of legal fees under such theories as services rendered, quantum meruit, and account stated (see Miller v Nadler, 60 AD3d 499 [2009]).
Plaintiff failed to establish its entitlement to recovery based on an account stated. Its invoices were addressed to a variety of entities and individuals; in many cases, the addressees in a given matter changed from month to month. Plaintiff asserts that the invoices were addressed thus at the direction of defendants. Notwithstanding,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Paribas Properties, Inc. v. BensonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Miller v. NadlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP v. CarucciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Berkman Bottger & Rodd, LLP v. MoriartyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Lederer v. KingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by13 opinions
- Sound Communications, Inc. v. Rack & Roll, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Ferst v. AbrahamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Jaffe Ross & Light, LLP v. MannAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Kucker & Bruh, LLP v. SendowskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Simon v. SackCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.