Erez v. Aigon Taxi, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erez v. Aigon Taxi, Inc.

255 A.D.2d 118, 679 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11620

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 118 (Erez v. Aigon Taxi, Inc.) 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

Erez v. Aigon Taxi, Inc., 255 A.D.2d 118, 679 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1997, substituting attorneys and limiting the lien of the prior attorney to the action it commenced against Aigon Taxi, Inc. and “John Doe”, unanimously modified, on the law, to entitle appellant to recover provable disbursements paid by appellant, and to remand the matter for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly held that amounts recovered by reason of a cause of action asserted against a third party subsequent to the discharge of the outgoing firm, and in connection with which the outgoing firm had not rendered services, were not subject to the outgoing firm’s lien.

We modify only to allow for provable disbursements to appellant (Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172, 178). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1997, substituting attorneys and limiting the lien of the prior attorney to the action it commenced against Aigon Taxi, Inc. and “John Doe”, unanimously modified, on the law, to entitle appellant to recover provable disbursements paid by appellant, and to remand the matter for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly held that amounts recovered by reason of a cause of action asserted against a third party subsequent to the discharge of the outgoing firm, and in connection with which the outgoing firm had not rendered services, were not subject to the outgoing firm’s lien.

We modify only to allow for provable disbursements to appellant (Shaw v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 68 NY2d 172, 178). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 118, 679 N.Y.S.2d 143, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erez-v-aigon-taxi-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack