Summary
finding that plaintiff, a consultant, was promised 10% of "all amounts received" by defendant could not be interpreted to mean "all amounts net of attorneys' fees"
Summary of this case from Gronich & Co. v. Longstreet Assocs. L.P.Opinion
72.
Argued April 28, 2004.
Decided June 3, 2004.
APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered August 4, 2003. The Appellate Division order, insofar as appealed from, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Orazio R. Bellantoni, J.), which had awarded plaintiff judgment against AccuScan in the sum of $191,166.25.
Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc., 307 AD2d 913, affirmed.
Hofheimer Gartlir Gross, LLP, New York City ( David L. Birch of counsel), for appellants.
Muldoon, Horgan Loughman, LLP, New Rochelle ( Edward D. Loughman, III, of counsel) for respondent.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
"[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms" ( Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman ( 2 NY3d 810 [decided today], quoting R/S Assoc. v. New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 32). The parties' agreement states that AccuScan, Inc. shall pay its consultant, Amnon Goldstein, "10% of all amounts received" by AccuScan in excess of $4 million in settlements obtained or license fees awarded regarding certain patents. AccuScan argues that "all amounts received," in fact, means all amounts received net of attorneys' fees. As the Appellate Division correctly observed, however, the contract's clear language does not admit of this qualification ( 307 AD2d 913, 914 [2d Dept 2003]). Finally, the existence of an attorney's charging lien does not alter AccuScan's contractual obligation to Goldstein.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.