 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Goldberger6/14/2005
(quoting Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 105, 108 (App. Div. 1996)). Recovery is permitted in quasi-contract because one party has conferred a benefit on the other and, in the circumstances, it would be unjust to deny recovery. Ibid. To recover under quantum meruit, plaintiff must establish: 1) that the services were performed in good faith, 2) the services were accepted by the person for whom they were rendered, 3) plaintiff reasonably expected compensation for performing the services, and 4) the value of the services is reasonable. Starkey v. Estate of Nicolaysen, 172 N.J. 60, 68 (citing Longo v. Shore & Reich, Ltd., 25 F. 3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1994)).
Seligsohn asserted in his certification that he performed services for Hakisah Bell and Muttalib Faison. It is undisputed that Seligsohn filed a complaint on behalf of Muttalib. He stated that he drafted interrogatories and answers to discovery requests. He also stated that he attended depositions and court proceedings. When the federal court dismissed the complaint filed by Seligsohn, Muttalib's claims were pursued by defendant and Mazie in the separate action. There is a dispute between the parties as to what, if anything, Seligsohn did to advance Muttalib's claims after the federal court dismissed his complaint. In his certification, Seligsohn asserted that there was little for him to do when Mazie assumed responsibility for the case because Mazie "made it very clear that he wanted complete control over the case." However, according to Seligsohn, he provided advice to Hakisah Bell respecting the settlement. He stated that Mazie "could not have secured Bell's consent to the settlement without participation." In addition, there is evidence in the record that Seligsohn's services were accepted by his clients. Seligsohn also asserted facts from which a fact-finder could conclude that he had a reasonable expectation of compensation .
We are satisfied that this evidence was more than sufficient to warrant denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's quantum meruit claim.
Therefore, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim in Count One, reverse the grant of summary judgment on the quantum meruit claim in Count Two, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|