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.
Martin Hirsch, appellant, v. Bashian & Farber, LLP, et al., respondents.
Submitted-December 7, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered January 26, 2010, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, an attorney, alleged that in 2006, he referred an estate matter to the defendants and that pursuant to an oral fee-sharing agreement, the defendants owe him a portion of a fee earned in representing the estate. In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established, prima facie, that the fee-sharing agreement in question was unenforceable under Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.12), which was the law in effect at the time of the conduct at issue (see Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP v Ajlouny, 76 AD3d 961; Ford v. Albany Med. Ctr., 283 A.D.2d 843, 845-846; Matter of Silverberg [Schwartz ], 75 A.D.2d 817; see also Excelsior 57th Corp. v Lerner, 160 A.D.2d 407, 408). In opposition, even if we were to consider, among other things, the plaintiff's unsworn affirmation (see CPLR 2106; Young Hwan Park v. Orellana, 49 AD3d 721) in addition to the verified complaint (see CPLR 105[u] ), the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Samuel v. Druckman & Sinel, LLP, 12 NY3d 205, 210; Benjamin v. Koeppel, 85 N.Y.2d 549, 552, 556; Reich v. Wolf & Fuhrman, P.C., 36 AD3d 885, 886; Weinstein, Chayt & Chase, P.C. v Breitbart, 31 AD3d 753; Graham v. Corona Group Home, 302 A.D.2d 358, 359).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
DILLON, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010-02179 (Index No. 3758 /09)
Decided: December 21, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)