Parone v. Rivers
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOESSL, STANLEY (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- A&M GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORP. v. NORTHTOWN UROLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Goessl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Goessl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- TOWN OF ANGELICA v. SMITH, JOEL S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Town of Angelica v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Clark v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Farrell v. Cayuga County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Verifacts Group, Inc. v. Town of Babylon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Goldberg v. Penny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Miner v. Kimble (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- City University of New York v. Finalco, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Boggs v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Merrill Transport Co. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff, an attorney, brought this action for legal fees which he claimed were owed under an alleged modification of a retainer agreement with defendants who comprise the Town Board óf the Town of Niagara. Defendants counterclaimed to recover alleged overpayment. After a nonjury trial, judgment was awarded to defendants on their counterclaim and plaintiff appealed. In reviewing findings of fact in a nonjury trial, the record should be viewed in a light most favorable to sustain the judgment, due deference should be accorded Trial Term in matters of credibility and the findings of fact should not.be disturbed unless such determination could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the facts (Matter of Dearmyer v Clark, 71 AD2d 807, 808; Tomaino v Tomaino, 68 AD2d 267). Plaintiff’s action was properly dismissed. There was insufficient proof of an oral modification but even if there had been, such agreement could not bind the town. A town’s contractual obligations can be created only in the manner provided by statute (Town Law, § 64, subd 6; New York Tel. Co. v Town of North Hempstead, 41 NY2d 691, 695-696; 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §§ 29.106-29.107). The proof established that defendants are entitled to judgment on the counterclaim; however, the amount of the award should be $241.47, plus costs and disbursements. That figure represents the $32,778 received by plaintiff, from which is subtracted $22,031 (plaintiff’s annual retainer and the disbursements and lawsuit work for the period January-September, 1977); $6,946.53 (the portion of retainer for town work and the disbursements and lawsuit for both sewer and town for the period October-December, 1977); $784 (disbursements for title abstract); and $2,775 (town work retainer and quantum meruit for sewer work for January 1, 1978).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.