RICHARD WARE LEVITT DOING BUSINESS AS LEVITT & KAIZER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, ETC., plf-res, v. JEFFREY BROOKS, def-ap

9040-9041. RICHARD WARE LEVITT DOING BUSINESS AS LEVITT & KAIZER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, ETC., plf-res, v. JEFFREY BROOKS, def-ap — Garvey Schubert Barer, New York (Andrew J. Goodman of counsel), for ap — Levitt & Kaizer, New York (Dean M. Solomon of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered November 3, 2011, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $224,956.16, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 31, 2011, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9040-9041. RICHARD WARE LEVITT DOING BUSINESS AS LEVITT & KAIZER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, ETC., plf-res, v. JEFFREY BROOKS, def-ap — Garvey Schubert Barer, New York (Andrew J. Goodman of counsel), for ap — Levitt & Kaizer, New York (Dean M. Solomon of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered November 3, 2011, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $224,956.16, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 31, 2011, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with evidence that defendant, who signed an agreement to be jointly and severally liable for his brother’s legal fees, failed to pay the outstanding legal fees to plaintiff. In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The motion court properly rejected defendant’s claim that the agreement was procured under duress. Plaintiff’s “threat” to cease representing defendant’s brother in federal criminal proceedings unless he was paid was not wrongful (see Fred Ehrlich, P.C. v. Tullo, 274 AD2d 303, 304 [1st Dept 2000]). Further, defendant himself was never precluded from exercising his free will (see id.).

RICHARD WARE LEVITT DOING BUSINESS AS LEVITT & KAIZER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, ETC., plf-res, v. JEFFREY BROOKS, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal