A state appeals court has ruled in favor of Anderson Kill in an account stated lawsuit brought over $146,883 in unpaid legal bills, writing that the law firm's condominium management board client "was not excused from objecting to the invoices by virtue of its general criticism of the quality of the legal work."

In a terse opinion, the Appellate Division, First Department court affirmed a June 2020 lower court ruling that had granted New York-based Anderson Kill's summary judgment dismissal motion against the Board of Managers of Honto 88 Condominium with regard to account stated claims for the $146,883 principal amount.

According to a July 2020 preliminary appeal statement lodged in the lawsuit by Honto 88 Board of Managers, the lower court had erred by not finding there were factual issues sufficient to survive the dismissal motion. More specifically, the management board defendant claimed that a factual "issue regarding the use of 'of counsel' [by Anderson Kill in its multiple legal representations of the management board] was never addressed by the court although the majority of the legal bills for the work performed on behalf of defendant were based on work by 'of counsel.'"

The management board also claimed that the lower court had "failed to review the retainer agreement and the use of 'of counsel'" in it, and related aspects.

It further claimed that there was a factual issue raised by the management board president "who stated that he never received nor saw the-invoices from plaintiff [Anderson Kill]."

But a unanimous First Department panel, in affirming Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Alan Marin's June 2020 decision, wrote that Anderson Kill "established its entitlement to judgment on the account stated claims by showing that it sent invoices, and defendant retained them without objection, with promises to make payment," citing Shea & Gould v. Burr.

The panel also wrote in its opinion that Honto 88 management board's "argument that the retainer agreement was not valid was not supported by the [underlying] record" in the 2019-filed suit, and the panel said that "in any event is irrelevant to the account stated claims," citing Thelen LLP v. Omni Contracting.

Moreover, the panel, composed of Justices Troy Webber, Jeffrey Oing, Tanya Kennedy and Saliann Scarpulla, wrote that the management board "was not excused from objecting to the invoices by virtue of its general criticism of the quality of the legal work."

"Objections to particular invoices may be excused where there is a dispute as to the existence or nature of the contract between the parties," the justices explained, but there was no such allegation over the existence or nature of the retainer contract put forward by the management board, they said.

The justices also noted the Anderson Kill "was entitled to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate."

Edward Stein, an Anderson Kill shareholder, represented Anderson Kill. In an email, he said that "Anderson Kill appreciates the Appellate Division's clear, concise and correct decision." He added that Honto 88 Board of Managers' "criticism of the firm's work … was irrelevant as a matter of law, as the court noted," and said that in his view it was baseless.

Winnie Mok of the Law Office of Winnie W. Mok in Manhattan represented the Honto 88 Board of Managers, and she did not comment when reached.