Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings Corp.

288 A.D.2d 91, 733 N.Y.S.2d 156

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 91 (Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings 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

Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings Corp., 288 A.D.2d 91, 733 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 6, 2001, upon a prior order, same court and Justice, entered June 29, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for an order directing plaintiff to pay defendants’ counsel interest upon their charging lien, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination not to award post-judgment interest on the charging lien of defendants’ counsel fixed therein was correct (see, Hayes v City of New York, 264 AD2d 610). Defendants’ counsels’ charging lien is, however, to have priority over plaintiffs right of setoff (see, Banque Indosuez v Sopwith Holdings Corp., 275 AD2d 662, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 824). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 6, 2001, upon a prior order, same court and Justice, entered June 29, 2001, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for an order directing plaintiff to pay defendants’ counsel interest upon their charging lien, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination not to award post-judgment interest on the charging lien of defendants’ counsel fixed therein was correct (see, Hayes v City of New York, 264 AD2d 610). Defendants’ counsels’ charging lien is, however, to have priority over plaintiffs right of setoff (see, Banque Indosuez v Sopwith Holdings Corp., 275 AD2d 662, lv dismissed 96 NY2d 824). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 91, 733 N.Y.S.2d 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indosuez-v-sopwith-holdings-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack