Morrison Cohen LLP v Schlass

Annotate this Case
Morrison Cohen LLP v Schlass 2007 NY Slip Op 04705 [41 AD3d 122] Decided on June 5, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 5, 2007
Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Buckley, Kavanagh, JJ.
1252
Index 104542/06

[*1]Morrison Cohen LLP (formerly known as Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP), Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Natalie Schleifer Schlass, etc., Defendant-Respondent.




Morrison Cohen LLP, New York (Jerome Tarnoff of counsel),
for appellant.
Richard L. Yellen & Associates, LLP, New York (Richard L.
Yellen of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered January 25, 2007, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and awarded defendant costs of the motion, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the award of costs, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's claims for legal fees allegedly unpaid by defendant's decedent were properly dismissed. The estate against which the claims were brought was in probate in New Jersey, the New Jersey limitations period applicable to the claims had expired, and there was no provision in the relevant agreements and documents indicating that New York law was to govern the attorney-client relationship between the decedent and plaintiff
law firm (see Gaslow v Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon, LLP, 286 AD2d 703, 705 [2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 700 [2002]; Boone Assoc. v Oaster, 257 AD2d 370 [1999]; Bachorik v Allied Control Co., 56 Misc 2d 982 [1968], affd 31 AD2d 891 [1969], lv denied 25 NY2d 737 [1969]).

The imposition of costs on the motion was unwarranted since plaintiff's choice-of-law argument was, although properly rejected, colorable.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 5, 2007

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.