Search for: "Weitz v. Davis" Results 1 - 1 of 1
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Dec 2009, 3:26 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
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]