Reingold & Tucker v Golia
Annotate this CaseDecided on January 24, 2013
Sup Court, Kings County
Reingold & Tucker, a Partnership, Plaintiff,
against
Stacey Golia, a/k/a STACEY ROSENBLATT, Defendant.
21038/10
Appearances:
Plaintiff
Reingold & Tucker
Brooklyn NY
Defendant:
Steven Herzberg, Esq.
Char & Herzberg, LLP
NY NY
Arthur M. Schack, J.
Papers numbered 1 to 2 were read on this decision and order:Papers Numbered:
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law1, 2
_______________________________________________________________________
In this legal fee dispute action between plaintiff law firm REINGOLD & TUCKER (R & T) and defendant former client STACEY GOLIA, a/k/a STACEY ROSENBLATT (GOLIA), plaintiff R & T seeks a judgment for $27,603.00, with interest from April 10, 2008, together with costs and disbursements for the instant action,
pursuant to two executed retainer agreements and a theory of quantum meruit. Defendant GOLIA counterclaims for breach of retainer agreements and seeks at least $10,000.00 from plaintiff R & T for "overpayment and over-billing," as a result of plaintiff R & T's 's "antiquated billing system"
[*2]
The Court conducted a bench trial in this action, on May 12 and June 19, 2012, and reserved decision. Opposing counsel were given an opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Court and both sides submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After a review of the trial transcript, the evidence presented at trial and the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of fact
Defendant GOLIA worked as a mortgage broker in Bayside, Queens. She was a
defendant in three mortgage fraud actions in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Lugard Williams v Berkshire Financial Group, Inc., et al., Index No. CV-06-5043; Charlene and Tyrone Davis v Long Island Commercial Bank, et. al., Index No. CV-06-5720; and, Israel Al Rasheed v Long Beach Mortgage Company, et. al., Index No. CV-06-6121. There is no dispute that plaintiff R & T was retained in 2006 and 2007 to represent defendant GOLIA in the Williams and Davis actions. Defendant GOLIA agreed to pay to plaintiff R & T a retainer of $20,000 in each of these two actions
and also to pay plaintiff R & T, in each retainer agreement, "$400 per hour in legal fees and also to remain responsible for, and to reimburse us [R & T], all costs, disbursements and expenses advanced on your behalf. Bills for services and disbursements will be rendered monthly, or from time to time as necessary." Further, "[b]ills for services and disbursements will be rendered monthly, or from time to time, as necessary [emphasis added]." Plaintiff R & T alleges that defendant GOLIA verbally agreed to the same retainer terms in the Al Rasheed action, but failed to sign the retainer agreement, dated July 3, 2007. Moreover, plaintiff R & T alleges that defendant GOLIA gave numerous excuses for not signing the retainer agreement and not paying the retainer in the Al Rasheed action.
Plaintiff R & T was successful in disposing of all three federal actions. The Williams action was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. Ultimately, plaintiff was successful in stipulating with the attorney for Williams, Davis and Al Rasheed to discontinue the federal actions and accept service for defendant GOLIA in New York Supreme Court actions. Subsequently, Berkshire Financial Group, Inc. went out of business and the Williams, Davis and Al Rasheed plaintiffs lost interest in pursuing defendant GOLIA.
After plaintiff R & T was informed that defendant GOLIA terminated its services,
plaintiff R & T sent defendant GOLIA a bill, dated April 10, 2008, for legal services
rendered to defendant GOLIA, as follows:
Williams case - 103 hours -$41,200
Davis case - 41.9 hours -$16,760
[*3]
Al Rasheed case - 20.35 hours -$ 8,140
$66,100
Disbursements$ 1,503
$67,603
Received on Account$40,000
Balance Due$27,603
Attached to the bill was an eleven page detailed and itemized schedule of services, with dates, services rendered and the amount of time expended for each of the services.
Two witnesses testified at the bench trial. They were Abraham Reingold (AR), R & T's senior partner and a veteran of 52 years admission to the New York bar and defendant GOLIA.
AR testified on May 12, 2012, at p. 26, line 12 - p. 27, line 15 and p. 28, line 4 -
p. 31, line 18, as follows:
In the meantime, we were served with - - I can't remember the
date because I gave up my copy. We were served with a complaint in
the case of Al Rasheed, and so we sent a retainer agreement similar to
what we had done formerly, and there is a note after we - - in my
records there is a note that I called Ms. Golia on the phone and asked
why we weren't receiving the $20,000 retainer agreement, retainer
check, and she said she didn't have it at the moment and she was going
to have to sell the stocks and she would pay me with the stocks. That
appears in my schedule of services, that telephone conversation.
Over the year and a half following, we mailed her reminders
of the fact that retainer wasn't returned with the $20,000 check, and
you will see that there was whole bunch of letters and conversations
with Ms. Golia who at first said she didn't receive it.
Alternately, she did receive it, but she lost it.
Alternately, that she was going to mail the money.
Alternately, that she had paid $10,000 which we never received,
and that's also noted.
Alternately, she did mail it, but I believe that the mail was
stolen from her mailbox, and one more thing; that she mailed it and [*4]
obviously the mail, the Post Office Department had failed; and finally
towards the end, I had at one of her series of misrepresentations - - . . .
On October 31, 2007 I had a telephone conversation with her,
and I also wrote to her about the fact that she's not - - I did not receive
the retainer agreement, and that I did not receive the check, and on
February 8, 2008, she telephoned me that she had mailed the $10,000
check which I never received.
Then with all the succeeding conversations I had about not
sending it and not sending the $20,000, I told her that I was annoyed.
I told her that I didn't believe for a minute what she was telling me.
Her excuses, they didn't make sense, and also I did not receive the
retainer agreement signed, nor did I receive the $20,000, and I demanded
that which is not usual for me, because it was almost a year and a half
since I sent the Rasheed retainer agreement, and I said I will not
represent you anymore nor do anymore work for you until you sign
the retainer agreement and pay the $20,000.
And so I recorded on March 8 [2008] there was an appeal from
the order on Al Rasheed, and from March 4 to March 28 [2008] I had
many calls to her about my not receiving the check, and that was the
last conversation I had, on March 28, 2008.
And on April 3 [2008] I got the letter from Mr. Herzberg
[defendant's new counsel] saying he represented Ms. Golia, and I
didn't understand why, because I had successfully concluded the
federal case against Ms. Golia in the Al Rasheed case, and in October
of 2007, I had agreed with Mr. Ingersol [Al Rasheed's counsel] in
enticing an order to get all the cases out of the Federal Court so that
I stipulated with him that he could - - I would accept service from him
without actual service.
So in October 2007 he ended up sending me that the three; the
complaints - - the summons and the complaints in the three cases, but
he never filed it for some reason.
One of the speculations that I had was as soon as we got - - [*5]
we were successful on the three cases in Federal court, Berkshire
went out of business, so the deep pocket was gone, and maybe they
lost interest. I don't know. But Berkshire was out of business, so
they couldn't be sued anymore in the State Court.
So after Mr. Herzberg said that - - he wrote to me that he
represented her in those three cases, I made arrangements to turn
over the files to him, notwithstanding the fact that there was nothing
for him to do any further, and I was not aware of anything that
happened after that, because I turned the files over to him. Whatever
he asked, I gave him.
Now with regard to recording, when I sent for bills, it was not
in a rage, it was not in an anger, but you can imagine that I as a lawyer,
as a working lawyer, I would be glad to get whatever money I'm
entitled to; but we are somewhat lax in sending bills out.
So I didn't send a bill out because I thought that she was
reliable, and I realized that she was ahead of the game; that she owed
me lots of money. That's why I was persistent in the fact that she
wasn't paying, and wasn't returning the retainer agreement.
So I took - - generally when I do something of service; a
complaint, a motion, a conference, I make a note to the extent that
I remember and do it. I put it down, how much is the item that I did,
and the time spent, and then when I make up my bill to the extent
that I don't have a piece of paper with a notation of the time and a
date, I run through the documents, go through my file, and to the
extent that it is not - - there is no time record, I then approximate
the time, and that's what the record of billing consists of.
I personally regard exaggeration of bills as a form of theft. I am
extremely conscientious in going through the file and getting a true and
honest bill. That's what I did in this particular case, and I didn't ask
for bonuses. All I asked for is the $400, and the disbursements per
hour and the disbursements that I expended.
As anybody can imagine, in a law practice, there's a bunch of [*6]
stuff that's not recorded that you do, and to the extent that there was
neither documents of time notations or documents or debts, as some
lawyers do, they add a ten percent or five percent difference. I didn't
do that.
These are the services that I performed, and I sat down with the
files, and I went through them document by document by document,
and this represents the services, the dates, and the times that I did this,
and I summed it in the comprehensive April 10, 2008 [bill], and it
comes to 103 hours on Williams, 41.9 hours on Davis, and 20.35 hours
on Al Rasheed.
Defendant GOLIA's testimony, on June 19, 2012, was extremely evasive and incredible. On direct testimony she denied hiring R & T to represent her in the Al Rasheed action and denied that R & T kept her informed about the Al Rasheed action. Then, on cross-examination, her testimony continued to be evasive with some dramatic memory lapses. Ultimately, she reluctantly admitted to the existence of the Al Rasheed retainer, not signing it and not paying to R & T the Al Rasheed retainer amount.
On direct, defendant GOLIA testified, at p. 5, lines 5 - 19:
Q.Did you ever hire Reingold and Tucker for a case known as
Al Rasheed versus Golia, did you ever sign a retainer agreement with
Reingold and Tucker?
A.No, I did not.
Q.Did you ever authorize Reingold and Tucker to do work on
the file known as Al Rasheed versus Davis?
A.No, I did not.
Q.Did you ever know that Reingold and Tucker ever performed
work on the file known as Al Rasheed versus Golia?
A.No, I never received any paperwork on that.
Q.Did Reingold and Tucker ever discuss work performed on this
file during their representation of you, that being Al Rasheed versus
Davis?
A.No, they did not.
Then, defendant GOLIA testified, as follows, at p. 9, lines 19 - 24, that she didn't know that a balance was due to R & T until she received R & T's bill, dated April 10, 2008:
Q.Did Reingold and Tucker ever inform you of that fact that there [*7]
may be a balance due on your bill?
A.No.
Q.When was the first time you ever even heard of the fact that
there may be a balance due to Reingold and Tucker?
A.April 10th of 2008, the bill that's in front of me.
During her cross-examination, defendant GOLIA testified as follows, at p. 29,
line 14 - p. 31, line 21, about her lack of knowledge about the Al Rasheed case:
Q.I want to discuss with you Al Rasheed, your testimony. I recall,
if I recall correctly, is you didn't hire Reingold and Tucker, you didn't
know anything about it and there were no writings on the case of
Rasheed; is that correct?
A.What's correct is that I knew that there was something that
somebody like was spoken about with Al Rasheed, but I never received
any paperwork on it. I never gave a retainer on it, you know, to my knowledge.
Q.You never received a retainer?
A.No, I said to you that I never, I never received paperwork on
Al Rasheed. I was approaching about Al Rasheed and because of the
other cases, that were you know, very - -
Q.Could I have you simply asked, do you know something or don't
you; can I get a yes or no if that calls for a yes or no; my question is did
you know that there was an action pending in [the] Eastern District of
Israel Al Rasheed against many people, including Stacey Golia, also
known as Stacey Rosenblatt; yes or no?
A.To my recollection, no.
Q.You have no memory of that?
A.I don't remember. I remember hearing about Al Rasheed, but I
don't remember the case or if there was an action pending or there was
a pending case. I don't remember. I know the other two yes, they were
pending, I know that for a fact.
Q.So you are telling us under oath that you were not aware that
there was a case commenced in [the] Eastern District by Mr. Al Rasheed? [*8]
A.No, that's not what I am saying.
Q.What's that?
A.I said no, that not what I am saying. What I am saying is I know
there was a case - -
Q.Are you familiar, did you know that Al Rasheed commenced an
action in [the] Eastern District; yes or no?
A.I know Al Rasheed commenced an action in [the] Eastern District,
but I did not retain anyone to defend me on Al Rasheed.
Q.Did I ask you that?
A.I don't know what you are going at, so I want to make sure that
my answer is clear.
Q.Could you answer the questions that I ask you?
A.Sure.
Q.Okay. So you knew that Al Rasheed commenced an action in
[the] Eastern District; yes or no?
A.Commenced an action, I don't know what district, what court.
Q.Commenced an action, yes?
A.Yes.
Q.I show you the summons an complaint in the case of Israel Al
Rasheed against many defendants, including you, and ask simply if you
have ever seen that before?
(Handing)
A.I - -
Q.Just yes or no?
A.I don't remember.
Q.You don't remember?
A.I don't.
Then, defendant GOLIA incredibly blamed her five children for her lack of memory about the Al Rasheed matter, at p. 32, line 7 - p. 33, line 3:
Q.On April 20, 2007 did we discuss, you and I had a long discussion
over the phone about why there is no liability of you to Mr. Al Rasheed?
A.I do not remember. I do not remember.
Q.Who is Mohabeer? [*9]
THE COURT:That's a name?
MR. REINGOLD:That's a family name.
Q.You have no knowledge?
A.I don't remember. You are talking 2007, right?
Q.You have no recollection, your memory is very bad of 2007?
A.I have five children, my memory is pretty much shot, you know
what I mean.
Q.So - -
THE COURT:I don't know what five children has to do with
your memory.
Q.You have a bad memory about the events of 2007?
THE COURT:How do five children have anything to do with
your memory?
THE WITNESS:I have a lot of things on my mind, so I don't
remember 2007.
Subsequently, defendant GOLIA, in her cross-examination, admitted to knowing about the Al Rasheed retainer, but disputed the fee. She testified at p. 44, line 11 - p. 45, line 25:
Q.Was there any conversation at all about the threat of being
liable for criminal RICO for a pattern of criminal acts involving
mortgages; yes or no?
A.For Mr. Rubin [GOLIA's criminal lawyer], no. For you, yes.
Q.Okay, yes?
A.From you, yes, you said that. Not Mr. Rubin, he didn't say that.
Q.Okay. Now after you received the first retainer agreement did
you ask me to send you another copy?
A.Of what?
Q.Of the retainer agreement for Al Rasheed?
A.No.
Q.How many copies of the retainer with regard to Al Rasheed did
you receive from my office?
A.One. [*10]
Q.Okay. Did you pay it?
A.No [emphasis added].
Q.And did you ever tell me personally that the - - you had sent the
sum of $10,000 on account?
A.No.
Q.Did you ever tell me that you had signed it and mailed it, yes?
A.No. I told you I wasn't signing it.
Q.You told me that you wouldn't sign it?
A.That's correct [emphasis added]. I told you when you first
sent it to me, I said I don't think it's a real case, I don't even know
these people and I told you that from the beginning. And you said, oh,
well, I think you should act upon it. And I said no, I am not doing it
right now. And I didn't know you went ahead and went to [the] Eastern
District Court or whatever court you said and you did work on it. I did
not know that until 2008 when I received this bill and I went over it
with Mr. Herzberg.
Q.Now that you know that it was a real case, do you have any
dispute about my fee for the working on this case, Al Rasheed?
A.I have an issue with the hours that you say that you spent since
you told me that all the cases were similar in nature and you didn't need
to spend that many hours. That's what you told me.
Further, defendant GOLIA testified that when she first received the Al Rasheed retainer she told AR that she was not signing it and then told that to AR's partner, Jordan Tucker. The following colloquy took place at p. 49, line 1 - p. 50, line 8:
Q.Did you ever tell me that you were not signing the retainer agreement?
A.Yes.
Q.When?
A.When you first sent it to me [emphasis added]. I don't
remember the date.
Q.Okay.
A.I told you I wasn't signing it and I said because I don't think it's [*11]
a real case. You said well, they should all be worked on at the same
time. And I said, listen, I don't want to do it right now. That's what I
said to you.
Q.So the answer is simply, excuse me, simply that you had a
conversation with me about Al Rasheed when you first received it and
not afterwards, exactly?
A.I missed your question.
Q.Did you ever have a conversation with me about [the] Al
Rasheed retainer after your first discussion with me that you said
you're not signing it?
A.I did have an additional discussion with you, yes, I did.
Q.When was that?
A.It was a couple, like let's say maybe a month or so later [emphasis
added], after I had already spoken again to Mr. Stu Rubin to ask him
what he thought about the Al Rasheed case, if he though I should
proceed with it, if I should do something with it.
Q.And you told him that you were not signing the retainer?
A.Yes. He knew, Mr. Rubin knew.
Q.And you told me that you were not signing?
A.Yes, the first time I told your and the second time I told your
associate, I think Jordan [Jordan Tucker]. I don't remember what
his name is exactly [emphasis added].
Defendant GOLIA, despite admitting above that she received the Al Rasheed retainer agreement, then denied again ever receiving any correspondence from R & T. The following exchange took place at p. 53 - lines 5 - 9:
Q.So in all throughout my representation of you, you never
received any mail from me; is that your testimony?
A.That's correct. You never sent me anything.
Q.Okay. That's right?
A.That's true.
Conclusions of Law
A preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that plaintiff R & T performed the [*12]legal services for which it was retained and properly billed defendant GOLIA. AR's testimony was credible. Plaintiff R & T was successful in disposing of three federal civil actions in which GOLIA was a defendant, with each having the potential of leading to federal criminal actions against GOLIA. Plaintiff R & T's work in the Williams and Davis actions was performed as per the retainer agreements between R & T and GOLIA. In the Al Rasheed action, plaintiff R & T performed work because of its reliance upon GOLIA's oral agreement to have R & T perform the work, subject to GOLIA's execution of the retainer agreement. GOLIA gave numerous excuses for not executing the Al Rasheed retainer and R & T performed legal work for her in good faith reliance that she would sign the retainer and reasonably compensate R & T. Therefore, R & T is entitled to payment under quantum meruit. Plaintiff R & T demonstrated to the Court the necessary elements to recover payment in quantum meruit, "(1) the
performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they were rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services." (Tesser v Allboro Equipment, Co., 73 AD3d 1023, 1026 [2d Dept 2010]). (See Zero Real Estate Services, Inc. v Parr General Contracting Co., Inc., ___ AD3d ___, 2013 NY Slip Op 00200, * 2 [2d Dept Jan. 16, 2013]; Evans-Freke v Showcase Contr. Corp., 85 AD3d 961, 962 [2d Dept 2011]).
Defendant GOLIA's testimony was evasive and incredible. After denying she had seen the Al Rasheed retainer agreement, she eventually admitted to seeing it, but not signing it or making any payments pursuant to it. Her attempts to blame her memory lapses about the year 2007 upon raising five children is beyond belief. House of Representatives Minority Leader and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is the mother of five children, as well as former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, and former first Lady Barbara Bush. These women have never claimed memory lapses because they each have five children.
With respect to the billing by plaintiff R & T, plaintiff R & T complied with the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 1215.1. R & T provided defendant GOLIA with a written retainer agreement in the Williams and Davis actions, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 1215.1 (c), "before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, provided that the agreement addresses the matters set forth in subdivision (b) of the section." Subdivision (b) requires that the agreement set forth "the scope of legal services to be provided," an "explanation of attorney's fees to be charged, expenses and billing practices" and "shall provide that the client may have a right to arbitrate fee disputes under Part 137." The Al Rasheed retainer, which defendant GOLIA wilfully never signed, also complied with the Rule, by stating that in the Al Rasheed matter, among other things:
We undertake to perform all services incidental to representing
you in the . . . action, and you give this firm exclusive right to take all
legal steps on your behalf. In consideration of the services rendered and
to be rendered, you agree to pay $400 per hour in legal fees and also to
remain responsible for, and to reimburse us, all costs, disbursements and
expenses advanced on your behalf.
Bills for services will be rendered monthly, or from time to time,
as necessary. We require a retainer, on account of services rendered and
to be rendered, and for anticipated expenses, as described above, in [*13]
the amount of $20,000.
Upon depletion of the retainer, it is within our discretion to either
bill you monthly, or from time to time as necessary, or to require you to
deposit additional funds on account of services to be rendered, in an
amount that we determine. . .
In the event that a dispute or disagreement arises between us
relating to our fees, you may have the right to arbitration of the dispute,
pursuant to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the
Courts, a copy of which will be provided to you upon request.
R & T complied with 22 NYCRR § 1215.1 by having GOLIA execute retainer
agreements in the Williams and Davis actions. With respect to the Al Rasheed action, plaintiff R & T undertook its work in quantum meruit, because defendant GOLIA reneged on executing the retainer agreement sent to her. Defendant GOLIA cannot obtain a windfall - free legal work - by her wilful failure to sign a retainer agreement in the Al Rasheed action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea (41 AD3d 54 [2d Dept 2007]), instructed at 60-61:
Public policy dictates that courts pay particular attention to fee
arrangements between attorneys and their clients, as it is important that
a fee contract be fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by
the client . . . If the terms of a retainer agreement are not established,
or if a client discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney may
recover only in quantum meruit to the extent that the fair and reasonable
value of legal services can be established . . .
22 NYCRR 1215.1, otherwise known as the "letter of engagement
rule," was promulgated by joint order of the appellate divisions, and
applies to all civil actions where the amount in controversy is $3,000
or more. The rule requires attorneys to provide all clients with a written
letter of engagement explaining the scope of legal services, the fees to
be charged, billing practices to be followed, and the right to arbitrate
a dispute under Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22
NYCRR) part 137 (see 22 NYCRR 1215.1 [b] . . . ]. This rule is also
satisfied if the attorney and client execute a formal written retainer
agreement reflecting the same information as required for a letter of
engagement . . . The rule became effective on March 4, 2002 (see 22
NYCRR 1215.1 [b] . . . ]. This rule is also satisfied if the attorney and
client execute a formal written retainer agreement reflecting the same
information as required for a letter of engagement . . . The rule became [*14]
effective on March 4, 2002 (see 22 NYCRR 1215.1 [b] . . . ]. This rule
is also satisfied if the attorney and client execute a formal written
retainer agreement reflecting the same information as required for a
letter of engagement . . . The rule became effective on March 4, 2002
(see 22 NYCRR 1215.1 [a] . . .
The language of 22 NYCRR 1215.1 contains no express penalty
for noncompliance (see 22 NYCRR 1215.1 . . . ). Indeed, the intent of
rule 1215.1 was not to address abuses in the practice of law, but rather,
to prevent misunderstandings about fees that were a frequent source of
contention between attorneys and clients. This intent was described by
Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman upon the rule's adoption,
that "this [rule] is not about attorney discipline in any way, shape or
form, and we certainly do not expect in any significant degree there to
be a large number of disciplinary matters coming out of this rule" (Caher,
Rule Requires Clients Receive Written Letters of Engagement, NYLJ,
Jan. 22, 2002, at 1, col 1 . . . ). The purpose of the rule therefore is
to aid the administration of justice by prodding attorneys to memorialize
the terms of their retainer agreements containing basic information
regarding fees, billing, and dispute resolution which, in turn, minimizes
potential conflicts and misunderstandings between the bar and clientele.
An attorney does not have to comply with 22 NYCRR § 1215.1 to recover on a quantum meruit theory. (Utility Audit Group v Apple Mac & R Corp., 59 AD3d 707; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, supra). Plaintiff R & T, in the instant action, attempted to comply with 22 NYCRR § 1215.1, but was frustrated by defendant GOLIA's noncompliance. GOLIA's failure to execute the Al Rasheed retainer does not allow GOLIA to evade payment to R & T under quantum meruit. (Roth Law Firm, PLLC v Sands, 82 AD3d 675 [1d Dept 2011]; Miller v Nadler, 60 AD3d 499 [1d Dept 2009]; Nicoll & Davis, LLP v Ainetchi, 52 AD3d 412 [1d Dept 2008]; Mintz & Gold, LLP v Hart, 48 AD3d 526 [2d Dept 2008]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, supra).
Further, pursuant to the Williams and Davis executed retainer agreements and the unexecuted Al Rasheed retainer agreement, plaintiff R & T sent to defendant GOLIA an eleven page itemized schedule of services, with dates, services rendered and the amount of time expended for each of the services. This invoice sufficiently demonstrated the substantial services performed by R & T. Pursuant to the retainers, "[b]ills for services will be rendered monthly, or from time to time, as necessary." This is enough for GOLIA to have made payment to R & T. (Matter of Edelstein v Greisman, 67 AD3d 796 [2d Dept 2009]). [*15]
Therefore, defendant GOLIA must pay $27,603.00 to plaintiff R & T, pursuant to the invoice dated April 10, 2008, statutory interest from that date and costs and disbursements for the instant action. With respect to defendant GOLIA's counterclaims, defendant GOLIA was unable to prove that plaintiff R & T over-billed her due to its alleged "antiquated billing system."
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that, after conducting a bench trial in the instant action, reviewing the trial transcript, all of the evidence presented at trial and the post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, judgment is granted to plaintiff REINGOLD & TUCKER, a partnership, in the sum of $27,603.00, with interest from April 10, 2008, together with costs and disbursements for the instant action; and it is further
ORDERED, that the counterclaims of defendant STACEY GOLIA, a/k/a STACEY ROSENBLATT are denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER
___________________________
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACKJ. S. C.
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.
