GOLDBERG WEPRIN FINKEL GOLDSTEIN LLP v. WERTZBERGER (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered October 14, 2022, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed the complaint.  Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the March 2014 letter agreement between Wertzberger's company and nonparties Klugman and Hirsch's company cannot be read as memorializing a prior agreement to enter into a joint venture project in connection with the acquisition of certain co-op units or additional transactions involving these or other acquired units that would make Wertzberger, who was represented by his own counsel, responsible for the legal fees for the work plaintiff performed for Klugman and Hirsch.  Nothing in the letter agreement refers to, or reflects, a broader agreement between the contracting parties, and, as the motion court found, the record evidence otherwise refutes plaintiff's joint venture theory (see Lebedev v. Blavatnik, 193 A.D.3d 175, 185–186, 142 N.Y.S.3d 511 [1st Dept. 2021]).

Apart from the joint venture partnership theory, plaintiff asserts no other basis for holding defendants responsible for the legal fees at issue.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.