From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schlenker v. Cascino

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 29, 2015
124 A.D.3d 1152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

01-29-2015

Dennis B. SCHLENKER, Respondent, v. Salvatore CASCINO et al., Appellants.

Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Foreman & Leonard, PA, New York City (Brian L. Gardner of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of John Hoggan, PLLC, Albany (John D. Hoggan Jr. of counsel) and Napierski, Vandenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, Albany (Shawn T. Nash of counsel), for respondent.


Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Foreman & Leonard, PA, New York City (Brian L. Gardner of counsel), for appellants.

Law Office of John Hoggan, PLLC, Albany (John D. Hoggan Jr. of counsel) and Napierski, Vandenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, Albany (Shawn T. Nash of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, ROSE, EGAN JR. and CLARK, JJ.

Opinion

ROSE, J. Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered January 4, 2013 in Albany County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. In 2008, defendant Salvatore Cascino, individually and on behalf of defendants 13 Lackawanna Properties, LLC and Copake Valley Farms, LLC, entered into a retainer agreement with plaintiff for legal services in connection with litigation pending against defendants in Columbia County (see Town of Copake v. 13 Lackawanna Props., LLC, 73 A.D.3d 1308, 900 N.Y.S.2d 508 [2010] ). Plaintiff's legal representation later expanded to include other related matters and, in January 2010, defendants became delinquent in their payment of counsel fees. Plaintiff withdrew from representation in 2011 and commenced this action seeking, among other things, to recover on an account stated. Defendants joined issue and counterclaimed for legal malpractice. Supreme Court (Teresi, J.) granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his account stated cause of action. Supreme Court (Platkin, J.) subsequently dismissed the legal malpractice counterclaim at trial and thereafter entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $52,480.94 in counsel fees plus $8,126.64 in prejudgment interest, as well as $14,762.37 in costs and disbursements. This appeal by defendants ensued.

Defendants do not contest the dismissal of their legal malpractice counterclaim. Rather, they argue only that summary judgment was improperly awarded on the account stated cause of action. We cannot agree. Plaintiff submitted proof that he provided defendants with invoices for services rendered and that he received no objection to the bills. Plaintiff also supplied the emails and letters to and from Cascino reflecting plaintiff's continuing work for defendants, his repeated requests for payment, and the lack of any objection by defendants to the work performed or the amounts billed. This evidence was sufficient to carry plaintiff's initial burden on his motion (see Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP v. Oppitz, 105 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 963 N.Y.S.2d 432 [2013] ; Levine v. Harriton & Furrer, LLP, 92 A.D.3d 1176, 1178–1179, 940 N.Y.S.2d 334 [2012] ; J.B.H., Inc. v. Godinez, 34 A.D.3d 873, 875, 823 N.Y.S.2d 576 [2006] ), and Cascino's “self-serving, bald allegations of oral protests were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the existence of an account stated” (Darby & Darby v. VSI Intl., 95 N.Y.2d 308, 315, 716 N.Y.S.2d 378, 739 N.E.2d 744 [2000] ; see Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP v. Oppitz, 105 A.D.3d at 1163–1164, 963 N.Y.S.2d 432 ; Antokol & Coffin v. Myers, 86 A.D.3d 876, 877, 927 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2011] ).

Further, we find no support for defendants' argument that the existence of a legal malpractice claim precluded the award of prejudgment interest for the account stated (see CPLR 5001 ; see e.g. Antokol & Coffin v. Myers, 86 A.D.3d at 876, 927 N.Y.S.2d 723 ). Nor do we find any basis to disturb the inclusion of copying costs incurred pursuant to the court's order as a taxable expense in the bill of costs (see CPLR 8301[a][13] ). Defendants' remaining contentions have been considered and determined to be without merit.

ORDERED that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.

LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and CLARK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schlenker v. Cascino

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan 29, 2015
124 A.D.3d 1152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Schlenker v. Cascino

Case Details

Full title:Dennis B. SCHLENKER, Respondent, v. Salvatore CASCINO et al., Appellants.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 29, 2015

Citations

124 A.D.3d 1152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2 N.Y.S.3d 292
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 666

Citing Cases

O'Keefe v. Barra

Turning first to the April 2022 order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff…

Costopoulos v. DeCoursey

These documents demonstrated plaintiff's receipt of the invoices, partial payment thereon and lack of…