Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. v Amersino Mktg. Group, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. v Amersino Mktg. Group, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 32882(U) November 30, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 102458/2010 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCANNED ON 121612012 Plaintiff, "againstAMERSINO MARKETING GROUP,NC. And YU WANG, Index No. 102458/2010 DECISION/ORDER FILED DEC 06 2012 NEW YORK Recitation, as required by CPLR 22 19(a), of the papers cons@%&U't# ~ for : Papers Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed.................................... Answering Affidavits...................................................................... Cross-Motion and Affidavits Annexed........................................... Answering Affidavits to Cross-Motion........................................... Replying Affidavits...................................................................... Exhibits...................................................................................... ~ motion Numbered 1 2 3 4 5 6 Plaintiff commenced the instant action to collect unpaid fees incurred in connection with representing defendants in two separate lawsuits. By order dated August 23,201 1, the action was stayed pending arbitration. Plaintiff now moves to lift the stay on the ground that defendants have failed to proceed in arbitration and for an order pursuant to CPLR 9 3212 granting plaintiff summary judgment. In response, defendants have cross-moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 8 32 12 granting defendants summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs complaint in its entirety. As an initial matter, the portion of plaintiffs motion requesting to lift the stay in this action, unopposed by defendant, is granted and the court will now decide the case on the merits. For the ~ [* 2] reasons set forth below, plaintiff s motion for summary judgment is granted and defendants cross-motion is denied. The relevant facts are as follows. On December 7,2007, defendant Yu W a g ( Wang ) executed, individually and on behalf of Amersino Marketing Group, LLC ( Amersino ), a retainer agreement (the Retainer ) wt plaintiff law fr Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., ih im ( EBG). The Retainer states that EBG s services will include representation and advice with respect to specific matters that [defendants] refer to the Firm. Pursuant to the Retainer, EBG represented defendants in two separate wage claim disputes entitled Apreza v. Amersino Marketing Group, LLC, et al. ( Apreza ) and O t z v. Amersino Marketing Group, LLC, et al. ri ( Ortiz )(collectively refereed to herein as the Underlying Actions ). In both cases, W n was ag named as a defendant in his individual capacity. Thereafter, EBG sent invoices for services rendered in the Underlaying Actions in unpaid amounts of $61,177.64 for the Apreza matter and $26,817.70 for the Ortiz matter. Defendants failed to pay these sums when they became due and owing. Accordingly, plaintiff filed the instant action seeking to recover the total unpaid balance of $87,99534. Plaintiff initially moved for summary judgment on January 24,201 1, with defendants cross-moving to, inter alia, compel arbitration pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Retainer. On August 23,201 1, the court issued an order compelling arbitration and staying the matter until said arbitration was complete. Arbitration was scheduled to take place on October 1,20 12, but defendants failed to pay their share of the arbitration fees by the set due date and the matter was dismissed. The court first t m s to EBG s motion for summaryjudgment. On a motion for Summary 2 [* 3] judgment, the movant bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact. See Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320,324 (1986). Once the movant establishes aprimafacie right to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material questions of fact on which he rests his claim. Zuchrman v. Ct of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557,562 (1980). iy In the instant action, EBG has established aprimafacie right to judgment as a matter of law against both defendants for breach of contract entitling it to summary judgment. Pursuant to the Retainer signed by defendants, defendants agreed to pay EBG for its representation of defendants in the Underlying Actions. However, defendants, in violation of the terms of the Retainer,have failed to pay EBG s invoices in the amount of $87,995.34. Defendants argue that EBG s motion should be denied because the Retainer only applies to EBG srepresentation in the Apreza action and not the Ortiz action. Moreover, they allege that even if the Retainer does apply to both Underlying Actions, the motion should still be denied as to defendant Wang because the Retainer was with Amersino only. As discussed below, these arguments are Without merit. First, under 22 N.Y.C,R.R. 4 1215.1, an attorney who undertakes to represent a client must provide said client with a written letter of engagement, or enter into a signed retainer agreement, that contains an explanation of the scope of the legal services to be provided. By its very terms, this provision does not require a separate letter or retainer agreement for each suit the attorney is to represent the client in, but one letter explaining (the scope of the legal services. See 22 N,Y.C.R.R. 8 1215.1. Here, the Retainer explicitly states: Ow services will 3 [* 4] include legal representation and advice with respect to specific matters that you refer to the Firm. Thus, while the Retainer s subject line reads Re: Apreza, et al. v. Amersino Marketing et Group, L.L.C., al., the actual terms of the Retainer do not limit EBG s representation of defendants to that particular case. There is no dispute that defendants sought representation by EBG for the Otz matter. Therefore, EBG s representation of defendants in Ortiz falls within the ri ambit of specific matters that [defendants] refer to the Firm and payment for said representation is covered by the Retainer. Second, as Judge Solomon previously held in the August 23,201 1 order, defendants ag argument that Wang can not be held personally liable is baseless. W n executed the retainer in his individual capacity and he w s an individually named defendant in the Underlying Actions. a Thus, W n may be held jointly and severally liable. ag Based on the forgoing, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against dsfendants for breach of contract is granted and the portion of defendants cross-motion seeking summary judgment and dismissing EBG s complaint in its entirety is denied, Defendants argue that if W n is found liable for the unpaid fees, his liability should be ag limited to the portions of work specifically done for him and that the court should conduct a hearing to decide which portion of work in the Underlying Actions was exclusively done for Wag. The court is not persuaded by this argument. W n was jointly and severally liable in the ag a Underlying Actions and so any legal work that was performed on herisino s behalf w s equally performed for W n benefit and defendants point to no law requiring EBG to divide the fees ags and expenses incurred in the Underlying Actions between the defendants. Thus, the portion of defendants cross-motion seeking a hearing to decide W n portion of the attorney s fees is ags 4 [* 5] m r denied. Defendants also argue that a hearing is required to determine whether the overall amount of fees charged by the plaintiff is reasonable or not. While defendants have a right to challenge the reasonableness of attorney s fees, the court is not required to hold a hearing in this instance as plaintiff has also demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment on an account stated. Defendants receipt and retention of the invoices annexed to EBG smoving papers, without objection within a reasonable time gives rise to an actionable account stated, thereby entitling EBG to summary judgment in its favor. See Ruskin, Moscou, Evans & Faltischek v. FGH Real@ Credit Crop., 228 A.D.2d 294 (1 Dept 1996); Fink, Weinberger,Fredman, Berman & Lowell v, Pefrides, 80 A.D.2d 78 1 (1 Dept 1981). Defendants did not challenge the reasonableness of EBG s fees when they received the invoices, nor did they raise this issue in their opposition papers to EBG s previous motion for summaryjudgment. Thus, they failed to object to the fees in a reasonable,tirne and plaintiff is now entitled to the amount set forth in the invoices. Accordingly, plaintiff s motion for sufnmary judgment against defendants is granted and defendants cross-rnotion is denied in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. and against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $87,995.34, plus interest thereon at the statutory rate. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: I \ \\ 30 \> Enter: r- % J.S.C, FILED 5 06 2012 NEW YORK COUNW CLERK S OFFICE
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
