LEFKOWITZ, J.
Joseph Mandell, plaintiff in person. Samuel A. Reinach, Jr., for defendant. LEFKOWITZ, J. A motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment having been granted, this matter was set down before me for an assessment of damages. The plaintiff brings this action to recover the reasonable value of legal services rendered to defendant. The evidence adduced before me showed that the plaintiff rendered substantial services to the defendant, from which the defendant derived important benefits, which may be briefly summarized as follows: the defendant's former wife agreed to accept a smaller amount than that which was then owing to her in full payment of arrears of alimony; future alimony payments were reduced in half, from $300 per month to $150 per month; defendant's former wife waived her rights in the estate of the defendant; further reductions in alimony were provided in the event the defendant's former wife should remarry; defendant was relieved of an obligation, which, by an earlier agreement, he had assumed, in connection with the support of his former wife's parents. services, after these had been completed, in order to avoid paying a reasonable fee. The plaintiff sent the defendant a bill for $2,363.24, which was inclusive of disbursements and which gave defendant a credit for $350 that had theretofore been paid. This bill was accompanied by a letter in which the plaintiff justly remarked that the bill represented less than the reasonable value of the services which were rendered. The bill was indeed modest. Of course, it is not unusual for an attorney who wishes to retain the good will of his client to charge for his services less than they are worth. After receiving the bill, the defendant made some payments on account but then declined further payment. Thus, there was no accord and satisfaction here, as in Van Voorhis v. Pembroke (239 App. Div. 143), where the defendant had paid the amount of the bill in full. In that case the court held that "in view of the payment by defendant" of the full amount of the bill "and the acceptance thereof by plaintiffs" there was an accord and satisfaction. But here the defendant rejected and repudiated the bill and may not now reverse his position and elect to stand upon it. Fully applicable here are the cases which hold that the plaintiff's recovery is not limited to the amount set forth in the bill which the defendant declined to pay (Williams v. Glenny, 16 N.Y. 389; Sherwood v. Hauser, 94 N.Y. 626; Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Ins. Co., 245 N.Y. 1, 4). I find that the plaintiff's services were worth the sum of $3,500 and that he incurred disbursements of $13.24, making a total of $3,513.24. He received on account the sum of $1,200, leaving a balance of $2,313.24. Judgment is awarded in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $2,313.24, together with interest from October 28, 1952. Ten days' stay of execution. Sixty days to make a case.