Court Opinion

ID: 9659969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:59:45.095949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:13.479382
License: Public Domain

LOMBARD, J.,
dissents with reasons.
Gin my view, the trial court properly granted Sher Garner’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Mr. Flettrich’s claims against it. No genuine issues of material fact exist that would preclude *1201summary judgment in this case. The facts in the record are clear that Sher Garner was acting on Touro’s behalf, and as Tou-ro’s disclosed agent, in hiring Mr. Flettrich as an expert in the Woldenberg litigation. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Sher Garner exceeded the authority granted by Touro in conveying to Mr. Flettrich the content and scope of the expert services needed from him. Mr. Flettrich has not come forth with any facts to indicate that Sher Garner bound itself personally to compensate him for his expert services in the Woldenberg litigation. Thus, Sher Garner cannot now be held responsible for Touro’s alleged failure to pay Mr. Flettrich for the work he performed. Accordingly, Sher Garner is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.