Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
GRECO & GOTTLIEB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STRAND REALTY CORP., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 1, 2001, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, insofar as appealed from, limited plaintiff law firm's recovery to quantum meruit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants own property that a public agency was seeking to acquire by condemnation for use by a large retailer, and that defendants retained plaintiff after the private developer of the project offered defendants $500,000 for the property. The retainer agreement on which plaintiff sues provided that plaintiff's fee was to be one-third “of all sums recovered in excess of the [$500,000] offer, whether by suit, purchase or settlement,” and that “if there is no condemnation, there will be no liability for legal fees or expenses.” Defendants thereafter sold the property to the developer for $675,000. The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiff's contract claim, limiting plaintiff's recovery to quantum meruit. The language of the retainer permitting a fee in the event the property is purchased for more than $500,000 cannot be reconciled with the language disallowing a fee if there is no condemnation. Accordingly, the retainer agreement must be construed “most favorably for the client” (Shaw v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 N.Y.2d 172, 177, 507 N.Y.S.2d 610, 499 N.E.2d 864; see Jacobson v. Sassower, 66 N.Y.2d 991, 993, 499 N.Y.S.2d 381, 489 N.E.2d 1283). Plaintiff's evidence of City Planning Commission resolutions determining the developer's applications for special permits and for amendments of the City Map in connection with the project does not show that there was a condemnation.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 30, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)