From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neals v. Cox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1997
240 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 2, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.H.O.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the lien is vacated.

We conclude that Beth Schlossman failed to prove her entitlement to $1,500 in fees on a quantum meruit basis. Schlossman failed to appear at the hearing. An attorney from her firm, with no personal knowledge of the facts, submitted the case file as evidence of value of her services. Assuming, arguendo, that the case file was admissible in evidence, no evidence was submitted of the hours worked on the case and the respondent's hourly rate. Accordingly, the respondent failed to prove the value of her services on a quantum meruit basis (see, Glickson v. Eli Lilly Co., 234 A.D.2d 416; Sparks v. Barry's Plumbing Heating Corp., 230 A.D.2d 606; Ruggiero v. Gross Plumbing Heating, 226 A.D.2d 984).

Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Neals v. Cox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 2, 1997
240 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Neals v. Cox

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH NEALS, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of KEVIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 2, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 380 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 1007

Citing Cases

Padilla v. Sansivieri

Further, in either case, the relevant factors to be weighed ( Rosenzweig v Gomez, supra) are equally…

Casey v. Ruffino

may only be compensated on a quantum meruit basis for the legal services rendered, as well as for…