Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andrews, Pusateri, Brandt, Shoemaker & Roberson, P.C. and Robert S. Roberson, Esq v. County of Niagara

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


January 31, 2012

ANDREWS, PUSATERI, BRANDT, SHOEMAKER & ROBERSON, P.C. AND ROBERT S. ROBERSON, ESQ.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY OF NIAGARA,
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Frank Caruso, J.), entered November 22, 2010.

Andrews, Pusateri, Brandt, Shoemaker & Roberson, P.C. v County of Niagara

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 31, 2012

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ.

The order denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment based upon defendant's alleged failure to pay for legal services rendered by plaintiffs. Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion seeking summary judgment on the complaint and dismissal of the counterclaims. With respect to the complaint, plaintiffs' own submissions in support of the motion raise triable issues of fact whether defendant owes plaintiffs further compensation pursuant to the legal services contract, and whether plaintiffs performed services in addition to those covered by that contract (see generally Ulrich v Estate of Zdunkiewicz, 8 AD3d 1014, 1015). Plaintiffs also failed to meet their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment dismissing the counterclaims (see generally Birt v Ratka, 39 AD3d 1238; Home Sav. Bank v Arthurkill Assoc., 173 AD2d 776, 777-778, lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1071). Thus, the motion was properly denied, "regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20120131

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.