Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v Duane Reade

Court of Appeals of New York

March 26, 2013, Decided

No. 119 SSM 51

Opinion

 [*1083]  [**631]  [***71]   On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs. The courts below did not err as a matter of law in dismissing the complaint (see Innophos, Inc. v Rhodia, S.A., 10 NY3d 25, 30, 882 NE2d 389, 852 NYS2d 820 [2008]).

Concur: [**632]  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

20 N.Y.3d 1082 *; 987 N.E.2d 631 **; 965 N.Y.S.2d 71 ***; 2013 N.Y. LEXIS 504 ****; 2013 NY Slip Op 1997; 2013 WL 1195614

 [1]  Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, Appellant, v Duane Reade, et al., Respondents.

Prior History: Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered August 7, 2012. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.; op 33 Misc 3d 1209[A], 939 NYS2d 741, 2011 NY Slip Op 51821[U] [2011]), which had dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiff law firm asserted that it was entitled to a success fee in addition to the flat $1 million fee it had already received in connection with its representation of defendant. The Appellate Division concluded that three emails exchanged by the parties constituted an unambiguous, integrated fee agreement, and that plaintiff was not entitled to a success fee under the terms of the fee agreement.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v Duane Reade, 98 AD3d 403, 950 NYS2d 8, affirmed.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP. v Duane Reade, 98 AD3d 403, 950 NYS2d 8, 2012 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5824 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't, 2012)

Headnotes/Summary