This attorney fee dispute went through the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, Arbitration, and back to Supreme court.  In the end opposition papers were rejected, cross-motions were filed 5 hours late, and the case ended up with a big award on the attorney fees.  We wonder if they are collectible?

In Hoffinger Stern & Ross, LLP v Neuman   2012 NY Slip Op 30951(U)   April 10, 2012
Supreme Court, New York County   Docket Number: 113111/09   Judge: Louis B. York we see the Court deciding this issue.

"Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on its account stated cause of action, and for dismissal of defendants’ affirmative defenses, Defendants cross-move for summary judgment
dismissing plaintiffs account stated cause of action, and for dismissal of all defendants except
Philip Neuman (Neuman) from this action.
This is an action for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment and quantum
meruit. According to the complaint, plaintiff served as the legal counsel for Neuman and the
other defendants, which are entities owned and or controlled by Neuman, or associates of
Neuman. Neuman retained plaintiff beginning on July 12,2006.For almost two years, plaintiff
was the legal representative of defendants in over a dozen actions in New York and New Jersey.
Plaintiff is seeking the recovery of fees for legal services performed in these actions, as well as
other work done on behalf of defendants.

Plaintiff previously brought a similar action against defendants, entitled Hoffinger Stern & Ross LLP v Neuman, et al., Index No, 105427/08 in this court. Plaintiff sought summary judgment against Neuman on its account stated cause of action. The court in that action held that, pursuant to Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administration (Rules), defendant had the right to arbitrate a fee dispute. The court therefore dismissed the action. Plaintiff claimed that it gave Neuman thirty days written notice of his right to seek arbitration. Neuman never filed a request for arbitration. Plaintiff thereafter brought the present suit, again seeking summary judgment on the account stated cause of action, this time against defendants, jointly and severally.

In a decision dated May 5,201 0 (the May 5,2010 decision), this court held that Neuman
had waived his right to arbitrate and could be sued in court.The court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the account stated cause of action and granted dismissal of defendants’ affirmative defenses on the ground that they were inadequately pleaded. Defendants sought a reargument and/or renewal of the May 5,20 10 decision, which was denied. However, on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the May 5, 2010 decision, holding that there was an issue of fact as to whether or not defendants objected to a bill  that was issued one day before plaintiff brought the first action. The dismissal of the affirmative defenses was also reversed on the ground that plaintiff would not have been prejudiced if defendants sought leave to replead.  Plaintiff is now moving again for summary judgment on his account stated cause of action, this time related to a single invoice, dated March which he allegedly sent to defendants. He seeks the amount of $654,651.

According to plaintiff, defendants’ counsel requested an adjournment, and asserted
that opposition papers would be served on plaintiff by noon on November 15,2011. The parties
thereafter executed a stipulation, which was submitted to the court, providing that defendants
agreed to waived their right to file opposition papers if they were not served by the abovesaid
time and date.

Plaintiff asserts that defendants’ counsel served plaintiff belated papers, on 4:59 p.m. on
November 15. The papers included the cross-motion, Defendants’ counsel allegedly informed
plaintiff that they were unaware of the due time. Defendants’ counsel also deny that there was a
default on their part. Plaintiff seeks to enforce the terms of the stipulation, and demands that the
cross motion and opposition papers be rejected as a matter of law.

The court finds that defendants are precluded from relying on the Grande decision. They had the option of raising this issue when they failed to make a timely cross motion pursuant to the PCO. Once they assented to the stipulation, they were bound to strictly comply with its terms. In the absence of any other assertion of good cause, defendants cannot bring their untimely cross motion. Therefore, the cross motion for summary judgment is denied. The court will consider defendants’ opposition to plaintiffs motion, as plaintiff have not been prejudiced by the delay,

Here, as in the previous motion, plaintiff raises similar arguments, though it concentrates on only one invoice, And defendants assumes the same position as previously. As the court examines the record, it finds that, with respect to the March invoice, there is no evidence of Neuman objecting or questioning the nature or amount of this invoice. The court will grant partial summary judgment to plaintiff.