The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Irving H. Saypol, Copartners Practicing Law under the Name of Saypol & Kotler v. Helen E. McLaughlin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Irving H. Saypol, Copartners Practicing Law under the Name of Saypol & Kotler v. Helen E. McLaughlin

2 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Although interest on a claim for services is ordinarily payable only from the...

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Although interest on a claim for services is ordinarily payable only from the...

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Although interest on a claim for services is ordinarily payable only from the date of demand (Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins. Co., 245 N. Y. 1, 6; Sweeny v. City of New York, 173 N. Y. 414, 416; Mygatt v. Wilcox, 45 N. Y. 306, 310), in this instance prior to the rendition of a bill the client made repeated payments to apply on the attorneys’ contingent fees, which were liquidated in amount by the contingent fee agreements and had become payable by success in the litigation. The attorneys were not obliged to accept the client’s cheek for $4,000 which was offered in full of these as well as of other claims for fees for different professional services unliquidated in amount. Partial summary judgment was correctly granted to respondents on the items included therein, with the exception of the $1,500 note held by plaintiff Leo Kotler individually, that is the subject of the seventh cause of action, which appellant has stated in an answering affidavit was delivered on condition that it would not be enforced until her affairs in connection with her father’s estate were completely settled, and until she had funds available from the estate for its payment. A triable issue was thus presented concerning the seventh cause of action (Smith v. Dotterweich, 200 N. Y. 299), which should be eliminated from the partial summary judgment granted to respondents. Otherwise, the judgment and order appealed from is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap