Mantell v Samuelson

[*1] Mantell v Samuelson 2004 NY Slip Op 50765(U) Decided on July 7, 2004 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 7, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-1299 N C

JOAN MANTELL, Respondent,

against

ELLIOT D. SAMUELSON, KEITH I. RIEGER and ANTHONY YOVINO, Individually and d/b/a SAMUELSON, RIEGER & YOVINO, LLP., Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the District Court, Nassau County (M. Massel, J.), dated August 7, 2003, denying their motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously modified by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the individual defendants; as so modified, affirmed without costs. [*2]

In this action to recover for court reporting services rendered, defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants argued that they were acting as agents on behalf of disclosed principals, their clients, and, as such, could not be held liable for said services. In addition, the individual defendants were partners in the defendant law firm, a registered limited liability partnership and, therefore, they could not be held liable for the debts of the partnership. Plaintiff stated in her affidavit in opposition that she has always billed the defendant law firm for her services and has always received payment from said defendant and not from its clients.

It is well settled that where an attorney contracts for court reporting services, he does so as an agent for a disclosed principal, his client, and thus cannot be held liable for said services where he did not undertake to assume such liability (see Sullivan v Greene & Zinner, 283 AD2d 420 [2001]; Urban Ct. Reporting v Davis, 158 AD2d 401 [1990]; Karen Schmeider d/b/a Schmeider Assocs. v Biersack, NYLJ, Oct. 17, 2003 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). We are of the opinion that an issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant law firm assumed responsibility for the cost of plaintiff's services.

However, inasmuch as the individual defendants were partners in the defendant law firm, a limited liability partnership, they cannot be held liable for its debts
(see Partnership Law § 26 [b]; 16 NY Jur 2d, Business Relationships § 2275; Joachim v Flanzig, 3 Misc 3d 371 [2004]). Therefore, the complaint, insofar as asserted against the individual defendants, should be dismissed.

Decision Date: July 07, 2004