In Ormandy v. Goldberg , a private investigator sought to be paid for his investigative services.
While Ormandy performed services for Goldberg, Ormandy never supplied a signed written statement detailing the work to be performed and the fees to be charged. (Local law requires such a statement be supplied to a client.)
Ormandy conceded the misstep, but still wanted to be compensated for his work. When the Nassau County District Court dismissed Ormandy's case, finding his noncompliance with local law precluded a recovery, he appealed to the Appellate Term, Second Department.
The AT2 determined that the failure to comply with the regulation didn't result in a forfeiture and Ormandy wasn't precluded from recovering the value of his services if Goldberg had authorized and accepted the services. As a result, the AT2 ordered a trial to determine whether Goldberg had authorized and accepted Ormandy's services and, if so, what the value of those services were.
"They're watching you, watching you, watching you, watching YOU-who-who."
To download a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Ormandy v. Goldberg