Preview:

Second Department, April 26, 2011
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
The Roth Law Firm, PLLC, New York City (Richard A. Roth of counsel), for appellant.
{**84 AD3d at 123} OPINION OF THE COURT
Austin, J.
On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether a court reporting agency may recover payment for services rendered directly from the client instead of being limited to pursuing the attorney who, as the client's agent, engaged the agency. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that although a court reporting agency may obtain payment for services rendered directly from the attorney who engaged it, a court reporting agency is not precluded from recovering those fees directly from the client.
A. Background
The plaintiff, Elisa Dreier Reporting Corp., doing business as First Reporting Corp., was hired by Dreier LLP, then-counsel for the defendants, Global NAPs Networks, Inc., and Global NAPs, Inc., to provide reporting services during a series of depositions taken in connection with an action brought by the defendants against Verizon New England. The depositions were taken during the time period of August through December 2008.
Prior to paying the plaintiff for its reporting services, Dreier LLP filed for bankruptcy and was dissolved. It is undisputed that the plaintiff never received payment for the reporting services it rendered.
When the plaintiff contacted the defendants for payment, the defendants refused to pay, alleging that Dreier LLP was responsible for paying the plaintiff. The defendants had engaged Dreier LLP to represent them in several different lawsuits, including an action entitled Global NAPS v Verizon New England. A letter of engagement executed by the defendants set forth the terms of their relationship with Dreier LLP. According to the letter of engagement, costs relating to transcript charges would be billed to the defendants. The arrangement between Dreier LLP and the defendants also provided, that, starting February 2008, the defendants would pay Dreier LLP the sum of $100,000 per month to be applied towards outstanding invoices. Any excess would be retained by Dreier LLP to be applied towards future invoices. [*2]
Pursuant to this engagement agreement, the defendants alleged that Dreier LLP, was responsible for paying the plaintiff, since any payments owed to the plaintiff were or should have been paid from the $100,000 monthly payments received by Dreier LLP from the defendants. As a result of the defendants' refusal to pay, the plaintiff commenced this action against them{**84 AD3d at 124} seeking to recover the sum of $41,393.81 for unpaid reporting services.
The defendants moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The Supreme Court, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The court held that Dreier LLP, as the attorney who hired the plaintiff, was responsible for paying the plaintiff's fees, and not the defendants, on the basis that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.
We reverse and find that the plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract.
B. The Law Prior to General Business Law

Download 2011_03543.pdf

New York Law