ANNA GLEYZERMAN plf-ap, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR GERSHFELD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC def-res

4676. ANNA GLEYZERMAN plf-ap, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR GERSHFELD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC def-res — O'Rourke & Degen, PLLC, New York (Gulnora Tali of counsel), for ap — Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York (Izabell Lemkhen of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the cause of action for breach of contract to the extent it relates to the first and third retainer agreements, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

4676. ANNA GLEYZERMAN plf-ap, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR GERSHFELD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC def-res — O’Rourke & Degen, PLLC, New York (Gulnora Tali of counsel), for ap — Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York (Izabell Lemkhen of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the cause of action for breach of contract to the extent it relates to the first and third retainer agreements, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In March 2013, plaintiff Anna Gleyzerman was arrested on drug and drugrelated charges. She entered into a retainer agreement with defendants to cover certain legal services for a flat fee (the first retainer). The following month, the District Attorney’s Office filed an indictment against Anna, and in July 2013, following a nine-monthlong wiretap investigation, it filed a superseding indictment against her. Anna’s mother, plaintiff Tatyana Gleyzerman, then entered into a retainer agreement with defendants to secure defendant Gershfeld’s appearance at Anna’s arraignment on the superseding indictment for a flat fee (the second retainer). Tatyana subsequently entered into another retainer agreement with defendants to secure certain services in connection with the superseding indictment for an additional flat fee (the third retainer). In or about October 2013, after defendants had performed a substantial amount of work on Anna’s behalf and had negotiated a favorable plea deal for her (albeit not as favorable as the one she ultimately accepted), plaintiffs terminated defendants’ services and demanded a refund of unearned fees.

ANNA GLEYZERMAN plf-ap, v. THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR GERSHFELD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal