Opinion
2012-02-2
LAPIDUS & ASSOCIATES, LLP, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ELIZABETH STREET, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Law Offices of E. Michael Rosenstock, P.C., Rockville Centre (E. Michael Rosenstock of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Theodore P. Kaplan, New York (Theodore P. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of E. Michael Rosenstock, P.C., Rockville Centre (E. Michael Rosenstock of counsel), for appellants. Law Offices of Theodore P. Kaplan, New York (Theodore P. Kaplan of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, J.P., SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily J. Goodman, J.), entered February 18, 2010, awarding plaintiff the total amount of $108,015.24 in its action to recover fees for legal services rendered, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 10, 2009, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on its claim for an account stated, and denied defendants' cross motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record demonstrates that defendants failed to dispute that plaintiff sent them the subject invoices and that no objections were lodged thereto until after this action had been commenced ( see Bartning v. Bartning, 16 A.D.3d 249, 250, 791 N.Y.S.2d 541 [2005] ). Defendants' challenges to the reasonableness of plaintiff's fees fail. In the context of an account stated pertaining to legal fees, a firm does “not have to establish the reasonableness of its fee” ( Thelen LLP v. Omni Contr. Co., Inc., 79 A.D.3d 605, 606, 914 N.Y.S.2d 119 [2010], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 713, 2011 WL 4916548 [2011] ), because “the client's act of holding the statement without objection will be construed as acquiescence as to its correctness” ( Cohen Tauber Spievak & Wagner, LLP v. Alnwick, 33 A.D.3d 562, 563, 825 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2006], lv. dismissed 8 N.Y.3d 840, 830 N.Y.S.2d 692, 862 N.E.2d 784 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Tunick v. Shaw, 45 A.D.3d 145, 149, 842 N.Y.S.2d 395 [2007], lv. dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 930, 862 N.Y.S.2d 333, 892 N.E.2d 399 [2008] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.