It is plain that the services rendered by plaintiff to defendant law firm fell squarely within the contractually contemplated duties of plaintiff's employment, and given that an enforceable oral contract exists, covering the matter of plaintiff's compensation, recovery for those services in quantum meruit is precluded (see Freedman v Pearlman,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
ZITO v. FISCHBEIN
35 A.D.3d 306 (2006)
831 N.Y.S.2d 25
ROBERT J.A. ZITO, Appellant, v. FISCHBEIN, BADILLO, WAGNER & HARDING, Respondent.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided December 28, 2006.
Decided December 28, 2006.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
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.