[*1]
Cicero v Casella
2009 NY Slip Op 52610(U) [26 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on December 15, 2009
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 15, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : GOLIA, J.P., PESCE and WESTON, JJ
2009-501 RI C.

Nicholas Cicero, Appellant,

against

Ralph Casella, Esq., Respondent.


Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Mary Kim Dollard, J.), entered October 31, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover attorney's fees he had paid to defendant. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of any portion of the amount paid and dismissed the action. The instant appeal by plaintiff ensued.

In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807). The evidence adduced at trial established that the parties had entered into a retainer agreement which set forth the hourly rates defendant would charge plaintiff and the scope of defendant's representation. Plaintiff paid the initial retainer fee of $5,000. Subsequently, defendant rendered services in accordance with the retainer by reviewing the substantial record of a prior action involving plaintiff and by researching the matter. Defendant submitted itemized invoices to plaintiff which indicated the services rendered and the amount of time spent thereon. Based upon the record presented, defendant was entitled to the agreed value of the services rendered pursuant to the retainer agreement (see McAcoy v Schramme, 238 App Div 225 [1933], affd 263 NY 548 [1933]). We further note that there was no evidence that the court was biased against plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Golia, J.P., Pesce and Weston, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: December 15, 2009