Beizer v Meiselman & Gordon, LLP

[*1] Beizer v Meiselman & Gordon, LLP 2014 NY Slip Op 50396(U) Decided on March 5, 2014 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 5, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
2012-2704 Q C.

Harriet Beizer, Appellant,

against

Meiselman & Gordon, LLP, MICHAEL MEISELMAN, ALVIN GORDON and AVA GORDON, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Anna Culley, J.), entered May 23, 2012. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, failed to award prejudgment interest as against defendant Meiselman & Gordon, LLP and dismissed so much of the complaint as was against defendants Michael Meiselman, Alvin Gordon and Ava Gordon.

ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is modified by awarding plaintiff prejudgment interest from January 15, 2008 on her $4,232.05 recovery against defendant Meiselman & Gordon, LLP, at the rate of 9% per annum, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a recomputation of prejudgment interest in accordance with the decision herein; as so modified, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action in September of 2010 to recover the principal sum of $4,232.05, representing the amount plaintiff was allegedly owed for stenographic services she had performed on behalf of defendants, from May 29, 2007 through June 2, 2008. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff $4,232.05 as against defendant Meiselman & Gordon, LLP, but declined to award her prejudgment interest thereon, and dismissed the causes of action asserted against the individual defendants, who were partners in defendant law firm. Plaintiff appeals.

The record failed to establish that plaintiff was hired by anyone other than defendant law firm or that any of the individual defendants, rather than defendant law firm, was the attorney of record on the 12 cases for which plaintiff was hired. Consequently, there is no basis to impose liability upon the individual defendants (see generally General Business Law § 399—cc).

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in failing to allow the recovery of statutory prejudgment interest in its award against defendant Meiselman & Gordon, LLP. "Interest shall be recovered upon a sum awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract" (CPLR 5001 [a]). The statutory rate of interest is 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004), and the interest shall be computed from January 15, 2008, a reasonable intermediate date (see CPLR 5001 [b]).

The judgment is modified accordingly.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 05, 2014