EMC Iron Works, Inc. v. Regal Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

EMC Iron Works, Inc. v. Regal Construction Corp.

7 A.D.3d 366, 775 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754

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

DecidedMay 13, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 366 (EMC Iron Works, Inc. v. Regal Construction Corp.) 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

EMC Iron Works, Inc. v. Regal Construction Corp., 7 A.D.3d 366, 775 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[367]*367Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered April 2, 2003, which denied nonparty appellant’s motion to determine and fix the amount of his charging lien under Judiciary Law § 475, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An attorney discharged for cause is not entitled to compensation (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 44 [1990]; Shalom Toy v Each & Every One of Members of N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 239 AD2d 196, 198 [1997]). Appellant’s filing of mechanics’ liens against the City instead of public improvement hens resulted in the dismissal of this action against the City (294 AD2d 173 [2002]), and constituted cause for discharge (cf. S & D Petroleum Co. v Tamsett, 144 AD2d 849, 850 [1988] [failure to perfect security interest by filing is malpractice]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

[367]*367Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered April 2, 2003, which denied nonparty appellant’s motion to determine and fix the amount of his charging lien under Judiciary Law § 475, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An attorney discharged for cause is not entitled to compensation (Campagnola v Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 44 [1990]; Shalom Toy v Each & Every One of Members of N.Y. Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 239 AD2d 196, 198 [1997]). Appellant’s filing of mechanics’ liens against the City instead of public improvement hens resulted in the dismissal of this action against the City (294 AD2d 173 [2002]), and constituted cause for discharge (cf. S & D Petroleum Co. v Tamsett, 144 AD2d 849, 850 [1988] [failure to perfect security interest by filing is malpractice]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 366, 775 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emc-iron-works-inc-v-regal-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack