Ash v. Freedman, 114 A.D.2d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1985). · Go Syfert
Ash v. Freedman, 114 A.D.2d 823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 823 �Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered December 24, 1984, granting summary judgment awarding plaintiff $23,500 as counsel…2 citing casesopening of page *823 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Nestor v. Britt, 16 Misc. 3d 368 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2007).published
    Nestor v Britt, 270 AD2d at 193 ; Matter of Boxley, 218 AD2d 623, 624 [1st Dept 1995, mem], citing Ash & Miller v Freedman, 114 AD 2d 823, 823 [1st Dept 1985, mem].) To the sum of $90,396.81, the court adds nine percent legal interest.
  • Ross v. Congregation B'Nai Abraham Mordechai, 12 Misc. 3d 559 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006).published
    Goldman v Rosen, 10 Misc 3d 1065[A] , 2005 NY Slip Op 52152[U] , *6 [Hous Part, Civ Ct, NY County 2005].) The First Department in Ash & Miller v Freedman has awarded interest under CPLR 5001 (a) “as a matter of law” on judgment for unpaid…
495 N.Y.S.2d at 183 ʺ[A]n award of interest would be mandated in an action by an attorney to recover under a retainer agreement or in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the legal services rendered.ʺ1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • John Harris P.C. v. Tobin, No. 18-3652-cv (L) (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2020).unpublished
    (ʺ[A]n award of interest would be mandated in an action by an attorney to recover under a retainer agreement or in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the legal services rendered.ʺ)
Ash & Miller
v.
Dorothy Freedman, Appellant-Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 26, 1985.
Published opinion
114 A.D.2d 823
1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53828
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin B. Stecher, J.), entered December 24, 1984, granting summary judgment awarding plaintiff $23,500 as counsel fees under a written retainer agreement, unanimously modified, on the law, to award plaintiff interest thereon from November 21, 1979, the date of plaintiff’s discharge, and otherwise affirmed, without cost or disbursements. The appeal from the order (same court), entered November 27, 1984, is dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Inasmuch as Special Term awarded judgment based upon the retainer agreement between the parties, plaintiff was entitled to interest thereon as a matter of law. (CPLR 5001 [a]; Delulio v 320-57 Corp., 99 AD2d 253.) The statute directs that interest be recovered "upon a sum awarded because of a breach of performance of a contract, or because of an act or omission depriving or otherwise interfering with title to, or possession or enjoyment of, property”. As a result, an award of interest would be mandated in an action by an attorney to recover under a retainer agreement or in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the legal services rendered. (See, Govern & McDowell v McDowell & Walker, 75 AD2d 979; Brent v Keesler, 32 AD2d 804.) As applied here, plaintiff’s action sounded in breach of contract with the recovery being based upon the contingent fee established in the agreement, reduced by the amount paid to counsel when he was retained. Accordingly, the plaintiff, as the prevailing party, was entitled to interest as of right, which shall be computed from Novem[*824]ber 21, 1979, the date counsel was discharged, the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed.

We have examined the other points raised on the appeals and find them lacking in merit. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.