LEVINE v. PINCUS (2017)

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the decision dated June 25, 2015 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment entered January 14, 2016 (see CPLR 5520 [c] ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an attorney, commenced this action to recover $4,500 for legal work he had allegedly performed for defendant from November 30, 2009 until January 10, 2010, asserting causes of action to recover damages in quantum meruit or, in the alternative, upon an account stated. After a nonjury trial, the District Court, in a decision dated June 25, 2015, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $900, based upon quantum meruit. We deem defendant's appeal from the decision to be from the judgment that was subsequently entered on January 14, 2016, pursuant to the decision (see CPLR 5520 [c] ).

Rules of the Appellate Division, All Departments (22 NYCRR) § 1215.1 (b) requires an attorney who undertakes representation and enters into an arrangement for, or charges or collects, any fee, to provide a letter of engagement or a formal written retainer agreement explaining the scope of the legal services to be provided, the fees to be charged, the billing practices to be followed and, where applicable, the right to arbitrate fee disputes. Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department (22 NYCRR) § 691.20 requires an attorney to file a copy of a retainer or compensation agreement with the Office of Court Administration. Contrary to defendant's contention, however, plaintiff was not precluded from recovering in quantum meruit based on his failure to comply with Rules of the Appellate Division, All Departments (22 NYCRR) § 1215.1 (see Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v. Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 62–64 [2007]; see also Gary Friedman, P.C. v. O'Neill, 115 AD3d 792 [2014]; Utility Audit Group v. Apple Mac & R Corp., 59 AD3d 707 [2009] ) or Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department (22 NYCRR) § 691.20 (see Siracusa v. Fitterman, 110 AD3d 1055 [2013]; Micro–Spy, Inc. v. Small, 69 AD3d 687 [2010] ). Upon a review of the record, we find that plaintiff established his entitlement to recover in quantum meruit the amount awarded by the District Court.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MARANO, P.J., GARGUILO and RUDERMAN, JJ., concur.