EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., plf-res, v. AMERSINO MARKETING GROUP, LLC def-ap

10983N. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., plf-res, v. AMERSINO MARKETING GROUP, LLC def-ap — Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing (Kenji Fukuda of counsel), for ap — KLG Luz & Greenberg LLP, New York (Luke Tynan of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered December 6, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action for unpaid legal fees, granted plaintiff law firm's motion for summary judgment in the principal amount of $87,995.34, and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim insofar as asserted against Wang individually, or, alternatively, seeking a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fees, and Wang's portion of those fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10983N. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., plf-res, v. AMERSINO MARKETING GROUP, LLC def-ap — Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C., Flushing (Kenji Fukuda of counsel), for ap — KLG Luz & Greenberg LLP, New York (Luke Tynan of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered December 6, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action for unpaid legal fees, granted plaintiff law firm’s motion for summary judgment in the principal amount of $87,995.34, and denied defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim insofar as asserted against Wang individually, or, alternatively, seeking a hearing to determine the reasonableness of the fees, and Wang’s portion of those fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record establishes plaintiff’s entitlement to recover the unpaid legal fees that arose from its representation of defendants in two underlying actions. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the subject retainer agreement governs plaintiff’s work on both underlying matters. In compliance with 22 NYCRR 1215.1, which mandates that retainer agreements contain an “explanation of the scope of the legal services to be provided” (22 NYCRR 1215.1[b][1]), the agreement specifies that plaintiff’s services “will include legal representation and advice with respect to specific matters that you refer to the Firm.” Although defendants initially sought plaintiff to represent them in only one of the underlying actions, it is undisputed that they requested plaintiff’s services with respect to the other action, shortly thereafter. Plaintiff’s representation of defendants in the latter matter therefore falls within the ambit of the retainer.

EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., plf-res, v. AMERSINO MARKETING GROUP, LLC def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal