Case Information
*1 16 ‐ 916 ‐ cv(L) &
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J ANUARY PERMITTED IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held at Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, City 13 th day June, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL,
PETER W. HALL,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x ABCON ASSOCIATES, INC., ‐ Counter Defendant ‐ Appellant ‐ Cross Appellee 16 ‐ 916 ‐ cv(L) ‐ ‐ cv(CON)
HAAS NAJARIAN, HAAS & NAJARIAN, LLP, cv(XAP)
Defendants Counter Claimants Appellees Cross Appellants cv(XAP) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x PLAINTIFF RICHARD HAMBURGER, Hamburger, DEFENDANT APPELLANT Maxson, Yaffe McNally, Melville, APPELLEE: *2 DEFENDANTS JEFFREY T. STRAUSS (Sara Spiegelman, on the CLAIMANTS APPELLEES brief ), Wachtel Missry New APPELLANTS:
Consolidated appeals from District the Eastern District (Wexler, J.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment court is AFFIRMED IN PART VACATED PART and REMANDED order. counter defendant appellant cross appellee ʺ ʺ ) appeals from February memorandum and order and May judgment (Wexler, J. ), entered after a bench trial, defendants counter claimants appellees cross appellants Haas Najarian, LLP (together, ʺ ) attorneys ʹ fees, plus interest, cross appeals decision interest, damages. assume ʹ familiarity underlying procedural history, issues appeal. In reviewing entered after bench trial, ʹ must set aside ʹ findings fact ʹ unless they are clearly erroneous. ʹʺ Krist Kolombos Rest. (alterations omitted) (quoting Fed. R. *3 Civ. P. 52(a)(6)). ʺ We review district ʹ s conclusions of law, its application of law to de novo ʺ Id.
A. Award of Contract Damages agree with that Abcon was obligated to pay under terms of their agreement. The June letter
contained satisfaction clause, acted reasonably expressing its dissatisfaction resolution matter, as its debt to York Community Bank increased to $1,161,490. Hence, exercised its contractual right under satisfaction clause relieved its obligation to pay fees. J.D. Cousins Sons, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Ins. Co. F.3d (2d Cir. (holding that performance satisfaction assessed reasonableness clause calls based objective criteria). affirm ʹ s respect award contract damages interest. B. Award Quantum Meruit vacate ʺ law does permit
meruit, however, valid, governs subject as claim. ʺ Mid Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, Fine Host Corp. 2005). Thus, there can no *4 recovery in quantum meruit in this because valid between already addressed conditions which H&N would be paid for services. Moreover, even recovery quantum meruit were not precluded here, would still be ineligible for quantum meruit recovery because it could have had reasonable expectation it would entitled were invoked. id. (requiring expectation compensation meruit Accordingly, entitled recover
* * * considered remaining arguments find them
without merit. we AFFIRM it damages, VACATE REMAND opinion. COURT:
Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, Clerk