From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kahn v. Kahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 19, 1992
186 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 19, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on that branch of the appellant's cross motion which requested a determination of his fee and on the plaintiff's motion for return of the retainer.

The plaintiff retained the appellant to represent her in a matrimonial action and paid a $3,000 retainer which was to be credited towards future charges. Approximately a year and a half later, the plaintiff brought a pro se motion for the return of the retainer, and the appellant moved for permission to withdraw and for a determination that the remaining fee for his services was $7,410. After hearing oral argument on the motions, the court permitted the appellant to withdraw, but rejected his claim for additional fees and directed him to return $2,500 of the retainer to the plaintiff. No issue is raised on appeal as to that portion of the order which permitted the appellant to withdraw from the case.

Where an attorney's withdrawal from a case is justifiable, the attorney is entitled to recover for services rendered on the basis of quantum meruit and to impose a retaining lien on the file or a charging lien on the proceeds of the judgment (see, Allen v Rivera, 125 A.D.2d 278; Rosen v Rosen, 97 A.D.2d 837). If the attorney fails to demonstrate that the withdrawal was justifiable, the right to recover on the basis of quantum meruit is forfeited (see, Allen v Rivera, supra). In the event that the withdrawal is justifiable, a hearing is required to determine the amount of compensation (see, Teichner v W J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977; Andreiev v Keller, 168 A.D.2d 528; Katsaros v Katsaros, 152 A.D.2d 539) unless the parties consent to a determination of the reasonable value of the attorney's services on the papers submitted to the court (see, e.g., Theroux v Theroux, 145 A.D.2d 625).

The court erred in arbitrarily reducing the appellant's fee to $500 without holding a hearing or stating the reasons for its decision (see, e.g., Gutin v Gutin, 155 A.D.2d 586). The appellant requested a hearing, and there is no indication in the record that he consented to a determination solely on the papers submitted to the court. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing to determine whether the appellant's request to withdraw was justifiable and, if so, to determine the value of the appellant's services on a quantum meruit basis (see, Teichner v W J Holsteins, supra; Katsaros v Katsaros, supra). O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kahn v. Kahn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 19, 1992
186 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Kahn v. Kahn

Case Details

Full title:MARTHA KAHN, Respondent, v. STEVEN KAHN, Defendant, and HERBERT RUBENFELD…

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

Date published: Oct 19, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Tree v. State

Inasmuch as the circumstances giving rise to the instant application, as set forth above, establish movant's…

Sharbat v. Law Offices of Michael B. Wolk, P.C.

As Firm was not required to commence a separate plenary action to recover its legal fees on a quantum meruit…