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.
Jeffrey S. Goldstein, appellant, v. Derecktor Holdings, Inc., respondent.
Argued—May 13, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages based on quantum meruit, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), entered May 4, 2010, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the second amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, and on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied.
To state a cause of action based on quantum meruit, a plaintiff must allege (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services (see Fulbright & Jaworksi, LLP v Carucci, 63 AD3d 487, 488–489; Soumayah v. Minnelli, 41 AD3d 390, 391). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87), the second amended complaint adequately states the elements of a cause of action based on quantum meruit (see generally Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 77 AD3d 344). Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant on its motion did not resolve all factual issues as a matter of law and conclusively dispose of the plaintiff's claim (see Elow v. Svenningsen, 58 AD3d 674). The defendant avers that it refused to pay the plaintiff by way of percentage-based compensation. However, because there is a dispute, inter alia, as to whether the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff additional compensation, and whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of additional compensation, the defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint should have been denied (see Gateway I Group, Inc. v. Park Ave. Physicians, P.C., 62 AD3d 141, 149).
COVELLO, J.P., ENG, LEVENTHAL and COHEN, 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: 2010–05775 (Index No. 11219 /09)
Decided: June 07, 2011
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)