ANDERSON & ANDERSON, LLP-GUANGZHOU plf-ap, GUANGDONG HUATU LAW FIRM, PLAINTIFF, v. NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADE CORP., def-res

9338. ANDERSON & ANDERSON, LLP-GUANGZHOU plf-ap, GUANGDONG HUATU LAW FIRM, PLAINTIFF, v. NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADE CORP., def-res — Anderson & Anderson, LLP, New York (David C. Buxbaum of counsel), for ap — Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, New York (Richard H. Dolan of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 14, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9338. ANDERSON & ANDERSON, LLP-GUANGZHOU plf-ap, GUANGDONG HUATU LAW FIRM, PLAINTIFF, v. NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADE CORP., def-res — Anderson & Anderson, LLP, New York (David C. Buxbaum of counsel), for ap — Schlam Stone & Dolan, LLP, New York (Richard H. Dolan of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 14, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiffs, law firms, sue to recover contingency fees allegedly due under written retainer agreements dated December 29, 2005 and June 24, 2009. Plaintiffs were retained under both agreements to enforce an arbitration award in the courts of the People’s Republic of China. The retainer agreements provided for the payment of plaintiffs’ fees out of the judgment creditor’s assets that were to be obtained and reduced to cash. The entire premise of the motion to dismiss is that plaintiffs are relegated to recovery in quantum meruit because they were supposedly discharged by defendant, their client. Defendant bases its claim of discharge upon plaintiffs’ knowledge of an October 2010 transaction by which defendant, through additional counsel, sold its rights under the arbitration award and released its lien on the judgment creditor’s assets in exchange for cash. In granting the motion, the court adopted defendant’s argument that the retainer agreement lost its purpose and plaintiffs’ services were no longer needed once the sale was effected. We reverse.

ANDERSON & ANDERSON, LLP-GUANGZHOU plf-ap, GUANGDONG HUATU LAW FIRM, PLAINTIFF, v. NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADE CORP., def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal