Trepp, LLC v. McCord Dev., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Trepp, LLC v. McCord Dev., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2014–2025 · …the question of whether a party had a reasonable expectation of compensation for services rendered is a matter for the trier of fact to determine based on the evidence before it at p. 511 ⚠ not in text
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kramer v. Greene (nyappdiv, 2016-08-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kramer v. Greene
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
To establish a claim for quantum meruit, the plaintiff must demonstrate: "(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services" (Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC , 100 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2012][internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kramer v. Greene
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
To establish a claim for quantum meruit, the plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services” (Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC, 100 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farina v. Bastianich
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, “[t]he question of whether a party had a reasonable expectation of compensation for services rendered is a matter for the trier of fact to determine based on the evidence before it” (Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC, 100 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2012], quoting Moors v Hall at 338 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farina v. Bastianich
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, “[t]he question of whether a party had a reasonable expectation of compensation for services rendered is a matter for the trier of fact to determine based on the evidence before it” (Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC, 100 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2012], quoting Moors v Hall at 338 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jamie's Place I LLC v. Cardi
N.Y. App. Term. · 2014 · confidence medium
Nor is dismissal of the holdover petition required at this early juncture based on tenant’s procedural challenge to the method used by landlord in terminating the tenancy, a challenge improperly raised by tenant for the first time in her reply papers submitted in connection with her initial dismissal motion below (see Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC, 100 AD3d 510, 511 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goldstone v. Gracie Terrace Apartment Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Plaintiff improperly raised her argument that defendant accorded her disparate treatment for the first time in her reply papers before the motion court (see Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC, 100 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goldstone v. Gracie Terrace Apartment Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Plaintiff improperly raised her argument that defendant accorded her disparate treatment for the first time in her reply papers before the motion court (see Caribbean Direct, Inc. v Dubset LLC, 100 AD3d 510, 511 [1st Dept 2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trepp, LLC
v.
McCord Development, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 15, 2012.
100 A.D.3d 510
Published

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil Singh, J.), entered January 18, 2012, pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in the total amount of $101,908.06, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 6, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the portion of the complaint seeking $78,000 owed for the second year of the contract, following automatic renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The contract under which plaintiff agreed to give defendant access to its information and analytics concerning commercial and collateral mortgage-backed securities for a fee via plaintiffs website does not constitute a contract for “service . . . to . . . personal property” (see General Obligations Law § 5-903 [2]; Wornow v Register.Com, Inc., 8 AD3d 59 [1st Dept 2004]). The contract did not involve the provision or lease of personal property (see General Obligations Law § 5-901; compare Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P., 77 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 753 [2012]).

Defendant’s contention that the contract permits it to terminate its subscription after the initial three months upon giving 15 days written notice is unpreserved. In any event, such interpretation amounts to a strained reading of the plain language of the contract. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.