Brodsky v. Manello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodsky v. Manello

83 A.D.2d 860, 442 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15252

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 17, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 860 (Brodsky v. Manello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brodsky v. Manello, 83 A.D.2d 860, 442 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by Scher & Eliasberg, P. C., the outgoing attorney, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 20,1980, directing it to relinquish papers in its possession and directing that its fee be fixed by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the case. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for the fixation of the fee and security. The order of Mr. Justice Pantano, on the incoming attorney’s motion for substitution, established, as the law of the case, that the outgoing attorney was entitled to a retaining lien. Accordingly, it was improper to direct a release of the file without determining the lien and fixing security (see Robinson v Rogers, 237 NY 467; Leviten v Sandbank, 291 NY 352, 358; Cholst v Cholst, 75 AD2d 527). Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by Scher & Eliasberg, P. C., the outgoing attorney, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 20,1980, directing it to relinquish papers in its possession and directing that its fee be fixed by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the case. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for the fixation of the fee and security. The order of Mr. Justice Pantano, on the incoming attorney’s motion for substitution, established, as the law of the case, that the outgoing attorney was entitled to a retaining lien. Accordingly, it was improper to direct a release of the file without determining the lien and fixing security (see Robinson v Rogers, 237 NY 467; Leviten v Sandbank, 291 NY 352, 358; Cholst v Cholst, 75 AD2d 527). Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Margett and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 860, 442 N.Y.S.2d 31, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodsky-v-manello-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack