American Stevedoring, Inc. v. Red Hook Container Terminal, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Stevedoring, Inc. v. Red Hook Container Terminal, LLC

134 A.D.3d 419, 19 N.Y.S.3d 726

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 2015·No. 16262N 651472/12·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered May 29, 2015, which, inter alia, directed nonparty Hiller, PC (HPC), plaintiff’s former counsel, to turn over its litigation file within 10 days of the date of the order, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and that part of the order vacated.

The court erred in requiring HPC to turn over its litigation file, on which HPC had a retaining lien, without first ensuring that payment for HPC’s legal services was made or secured, and in the absence of any waiver or exigent circumstances (see Wankel v Spodek, 1 AD3d 260 [1st Dept 2003]; Schneider, *420 Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v City of New York, 302 AD2d 183, 186-187 [1st Dept 2002]; Corby v Citibank, 143 AD2d 587, 588 [1st Dept 1988]). The court also erred in not directing plaintiff, as the former client, to bear the costs of reproduction and delivery of the file (see Matter of Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, 91 NY2d 30, 38 [1997]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered May 29, 2015, which, inter alia, directed nonparty Hiller, PC (HPC), plaintiff’s former counsel, to turn over its litigation file within 10 days of the date of the order, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and that part of the order vacated.

The court erred in requiring HPC to turn over its litigation file, on which HPC had a retaining lien, without first ensuring that payment for HPC’s legal services was made or secured, and in the absence of any waiver or exigent circumstances (see Wankel v Spodek, 1 AD3d 260 [1st Dept 2003]; Schneider, *420 Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v City of New York, 302 AD2d 183, 186-187 [1st Dept 2002]; Corby v Citibank, 143 AD2d 587, 588 [1st Dept 1988]). The court also erred in not directing plaintiff, as the former client, to bear the costs of reproduction and delivery of the file (see Matter of Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, 91 NY2d 30, 38 [1997]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

American Stevedoring, Inc. v. Red Hook Container Terminal, LLC, 134 A.D.3d 419, 19 N.Y.S.3d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

134 A.D.3d 419 (American Stevedoring, Inc. v. Red Hook Container Terminal, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related