Littleton v. Amberland Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Littleton v. Amberland Owners, Inc.

126 A.D.3d 857, 2 N.Y.S.3d 920

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2015

Docket2013-08642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 857 (Littleton v. Amberland Owners, 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

Littleton v. Amberland Owners, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 857, 2 N.Y.S.3d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered July 23, 2013, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the nonparty respondent, Klein & Folchetti, P.C., to impose a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the sum of $48,030.83 against certain settlement proceeds and directed counsel for the defendant to make immediate payment of $48,030.83 to the nonparty respondent from the settlement proceeds.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“Where an attorney’s withdrawal from a case is justifiable, the attorney is entitled to recover for services rendered on the basis of quantum meruit and to impose a retaining lien on the file or a charging lien on the proceeds of the judgment” (Kahn v Kahn, 186 AD2d 719, 720 [1992]; see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459, 462 [1996]). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the nonparty respondent, Klein & Folchetti, P.C., established good cause to withdraw as her counsel (see Ferdico v Zweig, 82 AD3d 1151, 1153 [2011]; Winters v Rise Steel Erection Corp., 231 AD2d 626, 627 [1996]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly determined that the sum of $48,030.83 was a reasonable attorney’s fee (see Breidbart v Wiesenthal, 117 AD3d 766, 767 [2014]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered July 23, 2013, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the nonparty respondent, Klein & Folchetti, P.C., to impose a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the sum of $48,030.83 against certain settlement proceeds and directed counsel for the defendant to make immediate payment of $48,030.83 to the nonparty respondent from the settlement proceeds.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“Where an attorney’s withdrawal from a case is justifiable, the attorney is entitled to recover for services rendered on the basis of quantum meruit and to impose a retaining lien on the file or a charging lien on the proceeds of the judgment” (Kahn v Kahn, 186 AD2d 719, 720 [1992]; see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459, 462 [1996]). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the nonparty respondent, Klein & Folchetti, P.C., established good cause to withdraw as her counsel (see Ferdico v Zweig, 82 AD3d 1151, 1153 [2011]; Winters v Rise Steel Erection Corp., 231 AD2d 626, 627 [1996]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly determined that the sum of $48,030.83 was a reasonable attorney’s fee (see Breidbart v Wiesenthal, 117 AD3d 766, 767 [2014]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 857, 2 N.Y.S.3d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littleton-v-amberland-owners-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack