Civil Lawyer Queens Secures Dismissal in Service Fee Dispute

The client operated a mid sized company providing logistics and administrative services across New York City. 

Several years earlier, the client entered into a fixed term service agreement with an outside vendor to provide operational and management support.

The agreement clearly defined the scope of services, payment structure, and contract duration, and expressly stated that the contract would terminate upon expiration unless extended through a written amendment executed by both parties. No automatic renewal clause was included.

Prior to the end of the contract term, the client provided written notice that it would not renew or extend the agreement. 

The services concluded as scheduled, and all invoiced amounts under the contract were paid in full.

Several months later, however, the vendor reversed course and alleged that the scope of work had expanded during the contract period, asserting that additional compensation remained owed despite the absence of any written amendment or revised fee schedule.

Under New York General Obligations Law and well established case law, a party seeking additional compensation must demonstrate a contractual or quasi contractual basis for that claim.

The vendor argued that the services “expanded in practice,” but the civil lawyer Queens emphasized that the written contract contained no provision authorizing unilateral fee increases, implied modifications, or compensation for additional work without a signed amendment. 

New York courts routinely reject claims for extra compensation where the contract contains integration and modification clauses requiring written changes.

The defense further relied on the principle that once a contract expires by its own terms, ongoing payment obligations generally cease unless expressly preserved.

Here, the agreement terminated by lapse of time, and there was no survival clause extending payment obligations beyond the contract term. 

The civil lawyer Queens argued that post expiration claims must fail absent a new agreement, consistent with New York Court of Appeals precedent on fixed term contracts.

The civil lawyer Queens conducted a comprehensive review of the written agreement, invoices, payment records, and contemporaneous communications. 

These materials demonstrated that all services performed fell squarely within the original contractual scope or were voluntarily performed without any agreement for additional compensation.

No written change orders, amended schedules, or mutual acknowledgments supported the plaintiff’s claim of expanded work requiring extra payment.

The plaintiff asserted a lump sum figure of approximately $1.9 million but failed to explain how the amount was calculated or which specific tasks allegedly exceeded the contract.

Under CPLR evidentiary standards, conclusory allegations are insufficient. 

The civil lawyer Queens highlighted the absence of timesheets, work logs, valuation metrics, or expert testimony linking the claimed amount to identifiable services, undermining the claim’s credibility.

This case underscores that under New York law, service providers cannot rely on vague assertions of expanded work to recover additional compensation. Written contracts, clear modification clauses, and proof of agreed pricing remain decisive.

For companies facing high value commercial disputes, early involvement of a civil lawyer Queens can be critical to containing risk, enforcing contract boundaries, and achieving efficient resolution.