Lebetkin v. Giray

Background

Steven Lebetkin and Ayse Giray signed a consulting agreement on July 16, 2012. Lebetkin agreed to provide business consultation, review business records, and work with Giray’s attorneys and accountants concerning Giray’s potential lawsuit over an ownership interest related to Chobani. In return, Giray agreed to pay Lebetkin 3% of any recovery she received from that lawsuit.

The agreement stated that it would continue until the lawsuit ended or negotiations and settlement concluded. It also stated that fees due to Lebetkin would be paid after termination. Giray sent Lebetkin a termination notice on September 6, 2012, after disputes over his communications with her and her attorneys. The underlying lawsuit settled in 2015, but Giray declined to pay Lebetkin 3% of the settlement.

Lebetkin sued Giray for breach of contract and quantum meruit, a claim seeking the reasonable value of services provided. After discovery, Giray moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

Breach of Contract

Applying New York law, the court held that the agreement created employment for a definite term, so Giray could terminate it only for good cause. The court found that Giray had good cause. Lebetkin repeatedly failed to follow her instructions about communicating with the attorneys, sent communications without her consent, sent an email from Giray’s account criticizing the attorneys, and encouraged Giray to change law firms.

The court also rejected Lebetkin’s argument that he had substantially performed the agreement by September 6 and therefore had earned the full contingency fee. The promised work included services related to the lawsuit, including settlement and negotiation work, but the lawsuit did not settle until 2015. The court found that Lebetkin’s work during the short period before termination was not a substantial portion of the promised services and that he had not successfully performed his liaison role.

The court further held that the agreement’s termination language did not require Giray to pay the 3% fee after a for-cause termination. Reading the agreement as a whole, the court found that payment was tied to services performed and completed. Because Lebetkin had not completed the required services, there were no fees due when Giray terminated the agreement or afterward.

Quantum Meruit

Giray did not challenge three elements of Lebetkin’s quantum-meruit claim: that he performed services in good faith, that Giray accepted them, and that he expected compensation. Giray argued instead that Lebetkin had no evidence of the reasonable value of those services.

The court agreed. Lebetkin identified no evidence establishing the value of his work and argued only that Giray had not specifically requested such proof in discovery. The court held that Lebetkin had the burden to support his own claim and had not presented evidence creating a factual issue for trial.

Disposition

The court granted Giray’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendant. The opinion does not state that the judgment was entered with or without prejudice.