[*1]
Cselle v Dalnoky
2005 NYSlipOp 51177(U)
Decided on July 21, 2005
Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on July 21, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: July 21, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2004-867 Q C

Leslie L. Cselle, Respondent,

against

Paul B. Dalnoky, Appellant.


Appeal by defendant from a small claims judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (K. Kerrigan, J.), entered November 25, 2003, which awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,200.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff brought the instant small claims action to recover the amount remaining in the escrow account of defendant, his former attorney, in connection with an estate matter which had been settled by defendant for $9,249.80. Defendant admitted at trial that he had given plaintiff $7,000 of the settlement funds, but was retaining the remaining amounts to cover his legal fees. He contended that the parties had initially agreed that some of the funds would be used to cover his fees, a contention which plaintiff refuted by introducing various checks as evidence of his payment to defendant. Plaintiff also testified that he had paid defendant in cash, which defendant denied.

Inasmuch as there was no retainer agreement between the parties, defendant was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of the legal services he performed. In order to recover in quantum meruit, an attorney has the burden of establishing performance, the work or services performed, the value thereof, and the nexus between the performance of the services and the liability to pay therefor (see 7 NY Jur 2d, Attorneys At Law § 195). Even assuming defendant was not paid for the legal services which he performed, inasmuch as he failed to set forth in any detail the services rendered, the time he spent on the work performed, his hourly fees, etc., he did not meet his burden of establishing the reasonable value of the services rendered. Accordingly, in the absence of any basis to fix legal compensation, the lower court did not err in awarding judgment for plaintiff. In doing so, the court rendered substantial justice between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA [*2]1807).
Decision Date: July 21, 2005