Search for: "Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea"
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Sep 2010, 3:32 am
The Second Department in Seth Rubenstein PC v. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 7:11 am
The case is Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 2:52 am
The Second Department in Seth Rubenstein PC v. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 10:00 am
*In Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 3:26 am
The aspects of the contingency fee retainer agreement prepared by defendants and signed by plaintiff that allegedly render it noncompliant with 22 NYCRR 1215.1 do not bar defendants from recovering in quantum meruit (see Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60-64 [2007]; see also Egnotovich v Katten Muchin Zavis & Roseman LLP, 55 AD3d 462, 464 [2008]; Nicoll & Davis LLP v Ainetchi, 52 AD3d 412 [2008]). [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:45 am
The Second Department [in Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, supra]…ruled that the attorney discharged without cause was not precluded from recovering in quantum meruit the fair and reasonable value of the legal services provided, but did not address the issue of whether fees already paid were disgorgeable. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 3:03 am
Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, defendants’ failure to comply with the rules concerning retainer agreements (22 NYCRR 1215.1) does not preclude them from recovering in quantum meruit (Frechtman v Gutterman, 140 AD3d 538,538 [1st Dept 2016]; Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60-63 [2d Dept 2007]). [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 5:47 am
(Seth Rubenstein, P.C. v Ganea, 41 AD3d 54, 60 [2d Dept 2007].) [read post]
