Taddeo v Medallic Art Co., Ltd.

Taddeo v Medallic Art Co., Ltd. 2007 NY Slip Op 04357 [40 AD3d 444] May 22, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Frank Taddeo, Jr., Appellant,
v
Medallic Art Company, Ltd., Respondent.

—[*1] Frank Taddeo, Jr., appellant pro se.

Law Offices of Michael Flynn, P.C., Garden City (Marc T. Wietzke of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 30, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly construed the ambiguous October 6, 1999 letter against plaintiff attorney, who had drafted it (see Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]), in finding that he was offering his services as a volunteer, and correctly determined that he had not acquiesced in a May 16, 2004 contingency fee proposal (see Matter of Albrecht Chem. Co. [Anderson Trading Corp.], 298 NY 437 [1949]). In light of the express 1999 agreement, the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims were also not viable (see Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 572 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.