Ader v. Purcell

New York Supreme Court

Ader v. Purcell

194 Misc. 540, 87 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1888

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 26, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 194 Misc. 540 (Ader v. Purcell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ader v. Purcell, 194 Misc. 540, 87 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1888 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Pecora, J.

A hybrid proceeding has been attempted here. A summons together with a petition seeking relief pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law has been served in which petitioners are designated as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants. Since there is no action, the summons must be dismissed.. Nor is it a special proceeding, which is commenced by the service of a notice of motion or order to show cause and a petition. The summons cannot take the place of a notice of motion. Furthermore the petition clearly shows that section 475 of the Judiciary Law is inapplicable, since the petitioners never commenced an action, special or other proceeding in any court wherein they appeared as attorneys for any of the respondents. There is no charging lien. If anything, petitioners only have a retaining lien. Their remedy lies in an action at law to recover the value of services rendered. Finally the [541]*541filing of a notice of pendency of action was wholly unwarranted. The petition clearly demonstrates that no action has been brought which falls within the categories enumerated in section 120 of the Civil Practice Act. The motion to vacate the service of the summons, to dismiss the petition and to cancel the lis pendens is in all respects granted. The cross motion for an inquest to determine the alleged attorneys ’ lien is denied. Settle order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pecora, J.

A hybrid proceeding has been attempted here. A summons together with a petition seeking relief pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law has been served in which petitioners are designated as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants. Since there is no action, the summons must be dismissed.. Nor is it a special proceeding, which is commenced by the service of a notice of motion or order to show cause and a petition. The summons cannot take the place of a notice of motion. Furthermore the petition clearly shows that section 475 of the Judiciary Law is inapplicable, since the petitioners never commenced an action, special or other proceeding in any court wherein they appeared as attorneys for any of the respondents. There is no charging lien. If anything, petitioners only have a retaining lien. Their remedy lies in an action at law to recover the value of services rendered. Finally the [541]*541filing of a notice of pendency of action was wholly unwarranted. The petition clearly demonstrates that no action has been brought which falls within the categories enumerated in section 120 of the Civil Practice Act. The motion to vacate the service of the summons, to dismiss the petition and to cancel the lis pendens is in all respects granted. The cross motion for an inquest to determine the alleged attorneys ’ lien is denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Misc. 540, 87 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ader-v-purcell-nysupct-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack