Opinion
2013-04-10
Jack NOTRICA, et al., respondents, v. NORTH HILLS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, etc., defendant; Joseph A. Altman, nonparty-appellant.
Joseph A. Altman, P.C., Bronx, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se. Tashlik, Kreutzer, Goldwyn & Crandell, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (Jeffrey N. Levy of counsel), for respondents.
Joseph A. Altman, P.C., Bronx, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se. Tashlik, Kreutzer, Goldwyn & Crandell, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (Jeffrey N. Levy of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, nonparty Joseph A. Altman, the plaintiffs' former attorney, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered March 21, 2012, which, without a hearing, upon a decision entered December 8, 2010, denied his motion for an award of an attorney's fee.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and thereafter a new determination of the motion in accordance herewith.
The Supreme Court erred in denying, without a hearing, the motion of Joseph A. Altman, the plaintiffs' former attorney, for an award of an attorney's fee. As the Supreme Court noted, Altman's failure to provide a letter of engagement or written retainer agreement in compliance with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 does not bar him from recovering legal fees for services under the facts presented ( see Nabi v. Sells, 70 A.D.3d 252, 253, 892 N.Y.S.2d 41;Miller v. Nadler, 60 A.D.3d 499, 499, 875 N.Y.S.2d 461;Nicoll & Davis LLP v. Ainetchi, 52 A.D.3d 412, 412, 859 N.Y.S.2d 368;Chase v. Bowen, 49 A.D.3d 1350, 1350–1351, 853 N.Y.S.2d 819;Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Hart, 48 A.D.3d 526, 526, 852 N.Y.S.2d 248;Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v. Ganea, 41 A.D.3d 54, 60–64, 833 N.Y.S.2d 566).
Further, in its prior orders entered December 5, 2008, and September 11, 2009, respectively, the Supreme Court (LaMarca, J.) determined that an evidentiary hearing was required to determine whether Altman was discharged for cause, or whether he was not discharged for cause and therefore entitled to recover legal fees based upon quantum meruit for the reasonable value of his services ( see Nabi v. Sells, 70 A.D.3d at 253, 892 N.Y.S.2d 41). The order entered September 11, 2009, specifically directed a hearing. Those orders became the law of the case and were binding on Justices of coordinate jurisdiction ( see Carbon Capital Mgt., LLC v. American Express Co., 88 A.D.3d 933, 935, 932 N.Y.S.2d 488;Post v. Post, 141 A.D.2d 518, 519, 529 N.Y.S.2d 341). Although those prior orders are not binding on this Court ( see Clark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 23 A.D.3d 510, 511, 806 N.Y.S.2d 633;Post v. Post, 141 A.D.2d at 519, 529 N.Y.S.2d 341), we conclude that the parties' submissions indicated that there were issues of fact warranting a hearing.
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing to determine whether Altman was discharged for cause and, if not, to determine the fair and reasonable value of his services computed on the basis of quantum meruit, and thereafter a new determination of the motion ( see Nabi v. Sells, 70 A.D.3d at 253, 892 N.Y.S.2d 41)
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.