Geval v Dominick Salvati & Son Architects

[*1] Geval v Dominick Salvati & Son Architects 2008 NY Slip Op 51115(U) [19 Misc 3d 144(A)] Decided on May 27, 2008 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 27, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON PATTERSON and GOLIA, JJ
2007-945 K C.

Marina Geval, Appellant,

against

Dominick Salvati & Son Architects ANTHONY M. SALVATI c/o DOMINICK SALVATI & SON ARCHITECTS, Respondents.

Appeal by plaintiff on the ground of inadequacy from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ellen M. Spodek, J.), entered February 2, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $6,500.

Judgment modified by increasing the amount awarded to plaintiff to the principal sum of $7,500; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiff paid defendants a retainer fee in the sum of $7,500, which plaintiff sought to recover in the instant breach of contract action. The court below determined that defendants had performed only certain of the services required under the agreement and limited the amount of the award to plaintiff to the sum of $6,500. The court concluded that defendants were entitled to retain $1,000 for the services rendered, under a theory of quantum meruit. However, the trial evidence fails to support a finding that defendants were entitled to retain $1,000 for the reasonable value of the work allegedly rendered based on quantum meruit since defendants failed to establish the reasonable value of their services or the time spent performing said services (see generally Precision Founds. v Ives, 4 AD3d 589 [2004]). Therefore, the amount awarded to plaintiff is increased to the principal sum of $7,500.

Plaintiff's claim for lost wages incurred in prosecuting this action is not recoverable in the absence of a statute, written agreement or court rule authorizing same (see Panish v Panish, 24 [*2]AD3d 642 [2005]).

Weston Patterson and Golia, JJ., concur.

Pesce, P.J., taking no part.
Decision Date: May 27, 2008