Opinion
July 9, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant-respondent.
The Supreme Court properly denied the nonparty appellant's motion to set aside the stipulation of settlement entered into between the parties. Prior to entering into the stipulation, the nonparty appellant informed the defendant wife by letter dated May 2, 1988, that he was going to request the court to relieve him as counsel. Then, on May 13, 1988, several days before entering into the stipulation, the defendant wife unequivocally stated to the Family Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), in a related proceeding, that she no longer wanted Mr. Pirrotti to represent her. Thus, the nonparty appellant lacks standing to question the actions taken by the parties in settling their dispute, and there is no reason to set aside the settlement, which the parties entered into freely (see, Pemberton v. Dolphin Dev. Corp., 134 A.D.2d 23, 25-26; cf., Moustakas v. Bouloukos, 112 A.D.2d 981, 982-984).
We also find that the court properly denied that branch of the nonparty appellant's motion which was for an immediate hearing and determination as to the fees owed to him in quantum meruit for his representation of the defendant wife (see, Theroux v Theroux, 145 A.D.2d 625, 626-627; Shatzkin v. Shahmoon, 19 A.D.2d 658, 659). Ordinarily, an attorney who is discharged without cause is entitled to a hearing to determine the amount of attorney's fees when the client needs the files in the attorney's possession to continue with an action (see, Teichner v. W J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979; Ventola v. Ventola, 112 A.D.2d 291, 292; Rosen v. Rosen, 97 A.D.2d 837, 838). However, here the client does not need any of the files held by the discharged attorney, because the parties here settled their dispute. Thus, "the discharged attorney is relegated to commencing a plenary action to recover the reasonable value of his services" (Theroux v. Theroux, supra, at 626-627; see, Shatzkin v. Shahmoon, supra). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.