From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Artim v. Artim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1985
109 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 18, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).


Unless and until it has been judicially determined that defendant's former attorney was discharged for cause under circumstances in which no attorney's fees are warranted ( see, Marschke v. Cross, 82 A.D.2d 944), he has a common-law retaining lien on the papers in his possession which must be respected ( see, Petrillo v. Petrillo, 87 A.D.2d 607; Yaron v. Yaron, 58 A.D.2d 752). Moreover, no exigent circumstances have been demonstrated which would warrant a court in directing him to turn over the papers prior to the holding of a hearing to determine the amount of his outgoing attorney's lien, if any, and to condition the turnover upon the payment of the sum thereby found to be due or the provision of adequate security therefor ( see, Petrillo v. Petrillo, supra; Yaron v. Yaron, supra; cf. Rosen v Rosen, 97 A.D.2d 837). Lazer, J.P., Gibbons, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Artim v. Artim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1985
109 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Artim v. Artim

Case Details

Full title:PETER ARTIM, Plaintiff, v. ANNA ARTIM, Respondent, and ARTHUR L. DIAMOND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 18, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Andreiev v. Keller

It is well settled that an attorney who has been discharged by his client without cause may invoke a…

Rotker v. Rotker

y determination of his or her entitlement to a fee, the outgoing attorney who asserts a retaining lien is…