Christopher J. Cassar, P.C. v Smith

[*1] Christopher J. Cassar, P.C. v Smith 2006 NY Slip Op 51050(U) [12 Misc 3d 131(A)] Decided on June 5, 2006 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 5, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT:: RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2005-826 S C.

Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Respondent,

against

Alexis Smith, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Steven Hackeling, J.), entered March 18, 2005. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,770 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.

Judgment affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought the instant commercial claims action to recover the sum of $2,770 representing defendant's balance for unpaid legal services, and defendant counterclaimed for the sum of $2,750. Defendant retained plaintiff to represent her son in a criminal matter and entered into a written retainer agreement. Said retainer agreement clearly stated that plaintiff's pre-trial fee would be $5,000. The evidence adduced at trial established that plaintiff worked a total of 61 hours on defendant's son's case and negotiated a plea agreement. Defendant was not satisfied with the plea agreement, hired a new attorney and refused to pay plaintiff the outstanding balance owed. In her counterclaim, defendant alleged that she was unhappy with plaintiff's services and, as a result, hired a new attorney. The lower court concluded that plaintiff established its claim for unpaid legal services and that defendant's counterclaim was without merit. Accordingly, judgment was entered awarding plaintiff the sum of $2,770 and dismissing defendant's counterclaim. Upon a review of the record, we are of the opinion that the judgment rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (see UDCA1807-A).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: June 5, 2006