In re Shaad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shaad

59 A.D.2d 1061, 399 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14357

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 1061 (In re Shaad) 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

In re Shaad, 59 A.D.2d 1061, 399 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court directed that appellant deliver his file in the underlying action to the attorney substituted in his place and allowed him a charging lien upon the proceeds of the pending lawsuit. The allowance of this charging lien was proper under section 475 of the Judiciary Law (see Matter of Regan v Frisone, Inc., 54 AD2d 1125; see, also, Matter of Cooper, 291 NY 255). The amount of such lien should be determined on a quantum meruit basis, i.e., the reasonable value of the services rendered by appellant. (Matter of Montgomery, 272 NY 323.) It was not necessary, however, that the court make such determination at the time [1062]*1062of granting the lien but, rather, it may determine the amount of the lien subsequent to any recovery in the underlying action. Furthermore, the amount of the recovery in that action is one of the elements to be considered in fixing the reasonable value of the services rendered. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Supreme Court—attorney’s fees.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The court directed that appellant deliver his file in the underlying action to the attorney substituted in his place and allowed him a charging lien upon the proceeds of the pending lawsuit. The allowance of this charging lien was proper under section 475 of the Judiciary Law (see Matter of Regan v Frisone, Inc., 54 AD2d 1125; see, also, Matter of Cooper, 291 NY 255). The amount of such lien should be determined on a quantum meruit basis, i.e., the reasonable value of the services rendered by appellant. (Matter of Montgomery, 272 NY 323.) It was not necessary, however, that the court make such determination at the time [1062]*1062of granting the lien but, rather, it may determine the amount of the lien subsequent to any recovery in the underlying action. Furthermore, the amount of the recovery in that action is one of the elements to be considered in fixing the reasonable value of the services rendered. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Supreme Court—attorney’s fees.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 1061, 399 N.Y.S.2d 822, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shaad-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack