Lapidus & Assoc., LLP v Elizabeth St., Inc.

Lapidus & Assoc., LLP v Elizabeth St., Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 00707 Decided on February 2, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 2, 2012
Gonzalez, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.
6701 601955/05

[*1]Lapidus & Associates, LLP, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Elizabeth Street, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.




Law Offices of E. Michael Rosenstock, P.C., Rockville Centre
(E. Michael Rosenstock of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Theodore P. Kaplan, New York (Theodore P.
Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily J. Goodman, J.), entered February 18, 2010, awarding plaintiff the total amount of $108,015.24 in its action to recover fees for legal services rendered, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 10, 2009, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on its claim for an account stated, and denied defendants' cross motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record demonstrates that defendants failed to dispute that plaintiff sent them the subject invoices and that no objections were lodged thereto until after this action had been commenced (see Bartning v Bartning, 16 AD3d 249, 250 [2005]). Defendants' challenges to the reasonableness of plaintiff's fees fail. In the context of an account stated pertaining to legal fees, a firm does "not have to establish the reasonableness of its fee" (Thelen LLP v Omni Contr. Co., Inc., 79 AD3d 605, 606 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]), because "the client's act of holding the statement without objection will be construed as acquiescence as to its correctness" (Cohen Tauber Spievak & Wagner, LLP v Alnwick, 33 AD3d 562, 563 [2006], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 840 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Tunick v Shaw, 45 AD3d 145, 149 [*2][2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 930 [2008]).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2012

CLERK