NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Weber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Weber

292 A.D.2d 576, 739 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 576 (NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Weber) 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

NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Weber, 292 A.D.2d 576, 739 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a tax foreclosure action, the defendant Marvin Moskowitz appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated May 30, 2000, as, upon reargument, granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that an attorney’s charging lien attaches at the commencement of the action or proceeding (see LMWT Realty Corp. v Davis Agency, 85 NY2d 462; Matter of Dresner v State of New York, 242 AD2d 627, 628; Judiciary Law § 475). However, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-301, the plaintiffs’ tax hens were entitled to priority over the appellant’s charging lien, despite the fact that some of the tax liens became due and payable after the charging lien attached (see also Real Property Tax Law § 1104 [2]). Furthermore, since the appellant’s services did not create the fund upon which the plaintiffs’ tax liens attached, equitable principles do not require that the charging lien take precedence (but see LMWT Realty Corp. v Davis Agency, supra; Matter of Dresner v State of New York, supra at 628). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a tax foreclosure action, the defendant Marvin Moskowitz appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated May 30, 2000, as, upon reargument, granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that an attorney’s charging lien attaches at the commencement of the action or proceeding (see LMWT Realty Corp. v Davis Agency, 85 NY2d 462; Matter of Dresner v State of New York, 242 AD2d 627, 628; Judiciary Law § 475). However, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-301, the plaintiffs’ tax hens were entitled to priority over the appellant’s charging lien, despite the fact that some of the tax liens became due and payable after the charging lien attached (see also Real Property Tax Law § 1104 [2]). Furthermore, since the appellant’s services did not create the fund upon which the plaintiffs’ tax liens attached, equitable principles do not require that the charging lien take precedence (but see LMWT Realty Corp. v Davis Agency, supra; Matter of Dresner v State of New York, supra at 628). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 576, 739 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-1996-1-trust-v-weber-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack