Manganaro v. H. J. R. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manganaro v. H. J. R. Realty Corp.

29 A.D.2d 566, 286 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 566 (Manganaro v. H. J. R. Realty 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

Manganaro v. H. J. R. Realty Corp., 29 A.D.2d 566, 286 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both dated March 8, 1967, each in a respective one of the actions, reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions by respondent-appellant dismissed, without prejudice to the commencement of a plenary action. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, under the circumstances of these eases wherein the former attorney seeking compensation does not have a charging lien and the judgments in the actions have been satisfied, he can only seek recovery by way of a plenary action against the attorney substituted for him (cf. Shatzkin v. Shahmoon, 19 A D 2d 658; Goldman v. Rafel Estates, 269 App. Div. 647; Matter of Weldon v. De Martini, 35 Misc 2d 710). A decision on the merits should not be made upon affidavits but after a full hearing. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both dated March 8, 1967, each in a respective one of the actions, reversed, on the law, without costs, and motions by respondent-appellant dismissed, without prejudice to the commencement of a plenary action. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, under the circumstances of these eases wherein the former attorney seeking compensation does not have a charging lien and the judgments in the actions have been satisfied, he can only seek recovery by way of a plenary action against the attorney substituted for him (cf. Shatzkin v. Shahmoon, 19 A D 2d 658; Goldman v. Rafel Estates, 269 App. Div. 647; Matter of Weldon v. De Martini, 35 Misc 2d 710). A decision on the merits should not be made upon affidavits but after a full hearing. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 566, 286 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manganaro-v-h-j-r-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack