APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
April 21, 2011
TYRONE RUDOLPH AND JESSIE MCCLAIN-
ANDREA G. HIRSCH,
Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered May 7, 2009, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Rudolph v Hirsch
Decided on April 21, 2011
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ
Order (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered May 7, 2009, affirmed, with $10 costs.
Civil Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, since the evidentiary proof submitted by defendant established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she rendered the agreed-upon legal services in accordance with the terms of the governing retainer agreement (see Kwangjin Song v Woods Oviatt Gilman, 55 AD3d 1278, 1279 ; Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon LLP v Chu, 240 AD2d 231 ). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ). Plaintiffs may not rely upon parol evidence to vary the terms of the complete, clear and unambiguous agreement (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 ; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing (see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Levine, 37 AD3d 250 ; Boomer v Gross, 34 AD3d 1096 , appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 934 ; Rivas v AmeriMed USA, Inc., 34 AD3d 250, 251 , lv dismissed in part, denied in part 8 NY3d 908 ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 21, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.