Kiernan v. Kiernan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kiernan v. Kiernan

233 A.D.2d 867, 649 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 867 (Kiernan v. Kiernan) 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

Kiernan v. Kiernan, 233 A.D.2d 867, 649 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of Ange & Gordon to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff in this matrimonial action. While nonpayment of counsel fees alone will not entitle an attorney to withdraw [868]*868from representation (see, George v George, 217 AD2d 913), the record demonstrates that the questioning by plaintiff of her attorneys’ competence, strategy and ethics has rendered it unreasonably difficult for the firm to carry out its employment effectively (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [C] [1] [d] [22 NYCRR 1200.15 (c) (1) (iv)]; Ashker v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 201 AD2d 765, 766; Mars Prods, v U. S. Media Corp., 198 AD2d 175, 176; Bankers Trust Co. v Hogan, 187 AD2d 305).

We therefore grant the motion of Ange & Gordon to withdraw as plaintiff’s counsel. The firm is thereby entitled to a charging lien (see, Kahn v Kahn, 186 AD2d 719, 720; Katsaros v Katsaros, 152 AD2d 539), and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to plaintiff. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Withdrawal of Counsel.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of Ange & Gordon to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff in this matrimonial action. While nonpayment of counsel fees alone will not entitle an attorney to withdraw [868]*868from representation (see, George v George, 217 AD2d 913), the record demonstrates that the questioning by plaintiff of her attorneys’ competence, strategy and ethics has rendered it unreasonably difficult for the firm to carry out its employment effectively (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [C] [1] [d] [22 NYCRR 1200.15 (c) (1) (iv)]; Ashker v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 201 AD2d 765, 766; Mars Prods, v U. S. Media Corp., 198 AD2d 175, 176; Bankers Trust Co. v Hogan, 187 AD2d 305).

We therefore grant the motion of Ange & Gordon to withdraw as plaintiff’s counsel. The firm is thereby entitled to a charging lien (see, Kahn v Kahn, 186 AD2d 719, 720; Katsaros v Katsaros, 152 AD2d 539), and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the reasonable value of the legal services rendered to plaintiff. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Withdrawal of Counsel.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 867, 649 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiernan-v-kiernan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack