1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.2d
  4. 219 A.D.2d
  5. 219 A.D.2d 497 (1995)
 

DERSHOWITZ & EIGER v. HELMSLEY

219 A.D.2d 497 (1995)

631 N.Y.S.2d 318

Dershowitz & Eiger, P. C., Appellant-Respondent, v. Leona Helmsley, Respondent-Appellant Leona Helmsley, Respondent-Appellant, v. Dershowitz & Eiger, P. C., et al., Appellants-Respondents

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

September 19, 1995

We agree with the IAS Court that plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on an account stated to recover legal fees. In this case, there was a timely objection to the invoices sued on sufficient to raise issues of fact to require a trial to determine the reasonableness of the fees billed defendant client (see, Dreyer & Traub v Rubinstein, 191 A.D.2d 236). We also find the counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty raises questions of credibility which are not susceptible to summary disposition.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases