From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yerushalmi Associates v. Westland Overseas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 2005
21 A.D.3d 1098 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-01365.

September 26, 2005.

In an action to recover legal fees allegedly due and owing, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated January 16, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Seligson, Rothman Rothman, New York, N.Y. (Alyne I. Diamond and Martin Rothman of counsel), for appellants.

Yerushalmi Associates, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (Segal Magori of counsel), respondent pro se.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When the language of a contract is ambiguous, its construction presents a question of fact which may not be resolved by the court on a motion for summary judgment ( see DePasquale v. Daniel Realty Assoc., 304 AD2d 613; Amusement Bus. Underwriters v. American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878, 880). Here, the contingency provision of the retainer fee agreement at issue is unclear and ambiguous as to whether a 4% contingency must be paid on the sum of money in an investment account previously frozen by a federal court order, in addition to the 4% contingency to be paid on the sum of money recovered by the plaintiff law firm that allegedly was stolen from the account.

Furthermore, a question of fact remains as to whether the bank's refusal to allow the defendants access to money in the investment account is a dispute between the bank and the defendants that arose subsequent to the recovery of the funds, or whether the plaintiff law firm failed to successfully recover the funds in the first instance. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Reiner v. Wenig, 269 AD2d 379).

In any event, the defendants' motion was made before discovery was complete and many of the essential issues of fact in this case are within the knowledge of individuals who had not yet been deposed. Hence, summary judgment was premature ( see Plaza Invs. v. Kim, 208 AD2d 704; Lewis v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 168 AD2d 435).


Summaries of

Yerushalmi Associates v. Westland Overseas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 26, 2005
21 A.D.3d 1098 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Yerushalmi Associates v. Westland Overseas

Case Details

Full title:YERUSHALMI ASSOCIATES, LLP, Respondent, v. WESTLAND OVERSEAS CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 26, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 1098 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 6924
803 N.Y.S.2d 620

Citing Cases

Town of Riverhead v. Cty. of Suffolk

We affirm the order insofar as appealed from. We agree that the record now before us does not support an…

Sprung v. Glenn Horowitz Bookseller

Lastly, it is settled that parties "should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior…