Legal Opinion
Lapidus & Associates, LLP v. Elizabeth Street, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 2, 2012PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The record demonstrates that defendants failed to dispute that plaintiff sent them the subject invoices and that no objections were lodged thereto until after this action had been commenced (see Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d 249, 250 [2005]). Defendants’ challenges to the reasonableness of plaintiffs fees fail. In the context of an account stated pertaining to legal fees, a firm does “not have to establish the reasonableness of its fee” *406(Thelen LLP v Omni Contr. Co., Inc., 79 AD3d 605, 606 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]), because “the client’s act of holding the statement without…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cohen Tauber Spievak & Wagner, LLP v. AlnwickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Bartning v. BartningAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Tunick v. ShawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by13 opinions
- Development Specialists, Inc. ex rel. Coudert Brothers LLP v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Development Specialists, Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Bryan L. Salamone, P.C. v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady v. RoseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Robson & Miller, LLP v. SakowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.