Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the defendant appealed two orders related to a breach of a fee-sharing agreement. The Supreme Court of Queens County denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, which claimed the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the accrual date of the plaintiff's contract claim, as he did not clarify when the fee was received or shared. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, leaving the determination of whether the Statute of Limitations applied as a factual issue for trial. The plaintiff provided evidence suggesting legal services continued until the client's case was resolved in 1991, thereby raising triable issues regarding the timeliness of the claim and compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the January order and affirmed the April order, emphasizing the need for trial to resolve these factual disputes.
Legal Issues Addressed
Breach of Fee-Sharing Agreementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated their fee-sharing agreement by failing to remit part of a client's fee.
Reasoning: The plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to remit part of a client's fee, violating their fee-sharing agreement.
Determination of Accrual Date in Contract Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the accrual date of the plaintiff's contract claim could not be determined as a matter of law due to the lack of evidence on when the fee was received or shared.
Reasoning: Consequently, the accrual date of the plaintiff's contract claim could not be determined as a matter of law.
Summary Judgment and Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied because he did not provide prima facie evidence to establish that the Statute of Limitations barred the action.
Reasoning: The defendant's motion for summary judgment claimed the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. As the moving party, the defendant was required to provide prima facie evidence supporting his motion, which he failed to do, as he did not clarify when he received the fee or when he failed to share it.
Triable Issues in Fee-Sharing and Legal Servicessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's evidence indicated ongoing legal services until 1991, raising triable issues regarding the Statute of Limitations and compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Reasoning: The plaintiff submitted evidence indicating that legal services were rendered up until the client's case resolution in 1991, creating triable issues regarding the Statute of Limitations and whether the plaintiff performed services that would allow fee-sharing under the Code of Professional Responsibility.