From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lansky v. Easow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2003
304 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Summary

reversing trial court's conclusion that attorney withdrew without sufficient cause

Summary of this case from CHOW v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Opinion

2002-09231

Submitted March 5, 2003.

April 7, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, John Marshall, the plaintiff's former attorney, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated August 20, 2002, as denied those branches of his motion which were for a retaining lien in the amount of $2,084.75 and a charging lien on the underlying action.

John Marshall, Plainview, N.Y., nonparty-appellant pro se.

Steven Lansky, Plainview, N.Y., respondent pro se.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and those branches of the appellant's motion which were for a retaining lien in the amount of $2,084.75 and a charging lien are granted.

The plaintiff submitted no proof that the appellant was discharged for cause. Thus, the appellant is entitled to reimbursement for his disbursements of $2,084.75 advanced in prosecuting the plaintiff's personal injury action (see Security Credit Sys. v. Perfetto, 242 A.D.2d 871).

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, an attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client's cause of action. Where an attorney's representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien. However, where an attorney withdraws without good cause, his or her lien is automatically forfeited (see Klein v. Eubank, 87 N.Y.2d 459; Hae Sook Moon v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 292). The Supreme Court's conclusion that the appellant withdrew without sufficient cause is not supported by the record. Thus, the appellant maintained his right to enforce his statutory lien on the plaintiff's cause of action.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lansky v. Easow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2003
304 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

reversing trial court's conclusion that attorney withdrew without sufficient cause

Summary of this case from CHOW v. CITY OF NEW YORK

reversing trial court's conclusion that attorney withdrew without sufficient cause

Summary of this case from CHOW v. CITY OF NEW YORK
Case details for

Lansky v. Easow

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN LANSKY, respondent, v. JOLLY J. EASOW, defendant; JOHN MARSHALL…

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

Date published: Apr 7, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 885

Citing Cases

Nazario v. Ciafone

In support of that branch of the petition which was to compel the appellant to turn over the petitioner's…

Wasserman v. Wasserman

lient's favor, and the proceeds thereof. “A charging lien is a security interest in the favorable result of…