Kent v. Baker

New York Supreme Court

Kent v. Baker

31 Misc. 2d 840, 221 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2250

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 13, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 31 Misc. 2d 840 (Kent v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kent v. Baker, 31 Misc. 2d 840, 221 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2250 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for an order directing Harold Sylvan, Esq., to turn over the file in the above-titled action is granted. The file is to be turned over to Angelo A. Corcillo, Esq., within five days after the service of a copy of the order on said Harold Sylvan.

The order to show cause was directed to and served on Harold Sylvan, Esq. He has not submitted an affidavit to show that he did not withdraw or was not justifiably discharged as trial counsel for the plaintiff. Absent any affidavit by him it must be held, as contended by the movant, that he has voluntarily terminated, without justification, his relation with plaintiff’s attorney of record and therefore he is entitled to no compensation for any services rendered (Matter of Dunn, 205 N. Y. 398, 401). Since he is entitled to no compensation, a retaining lien is not in order (Matter of Dunn, supra). Moreover, since he is not the attorney of record, a charging lien would not be allowed even if the relationship were terminated by the attorney of record without cause. (Johnson v. Jahr, 1 A D 2d 579.)

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for an order directing Harold Sylvan, Esq., to turn over the file in the above-titled action is granted. The file is to be turned over to Angelo A. Corcillo, Esq., within five days after the service of a copy of the order on said Harold Sylvan.

The order to show cause was directed to and served on Harold Sylvan, Esq. He has not submitted an affidavit to show that he did not withdraw or was not justifiably discharged as trial counsel for the plaintiff. Absent any affidavit by him it must be held, as contended by the movant, that he has voluntarily terminated, without justification, his relation with plaintiff’s attorney of record and therefore he is entitled to no compensation for any services rendered (Matter of Dunn, 205 N. Y. 398, 401). Since he is entitled to no compensation, a retaining lien is not in order (Matter of Dunn, supra). Moreover, since he is not the attorney of record, a charging lien would not be allowed even if the relationship were terminated by the attorney of record without cause. (Johnson v. Jahr, 1 A D 2d 579.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 2d 840, 221 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1961 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-baker-nysupct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack