Poorten v. Polland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Poorten v. Polland

21 A.D.2d 975, 252 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 975 (Poorten v. Polland) 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

Poorten v. Polland, 21 A.D.2d 975, 252 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Motionto strike appendix to appellant’s brief denied, without costs. Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party and proceeding dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Section 475 of the Judiciary Law provides “From the commencement of an action * the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action”. (Emphasis supplied.) Even though it was determined that the infant had approved the selection of an attorney by her father who did not have her legal custody (cf. CPLR 1201), nevertheless those services were effectively disapproved before the eommencemeni of any action on her behalf. Thus when the respondents commenced an action on behalf of the infant on November 9, 1963 they were not her attorneys and [976]*976no lien came into being. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term fixing and determining the lien of petitioners as attorneys.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.

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

Motionto strike appendix to appellant’s brief denied, without costs. Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party and proceeding dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Section 475 of the Judiciary Law provides “From the commencement of an action * the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client’s cause of action”. (Emphasis supplied.) Even though it was determined that the infant had approved the selection of an attorney by her father who did not have her legal custody (cf. CPLR 1201), nevertheless those services were effectively disapproved before the eommencemeni of any action on her behalf. Thus when the respondents commenced an action on behalf of the infant on November 9, 1963 they were not her attorneys and [976]*976no lien came into being. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term fixing and determining the lien of petitioners as attorneys.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 975, 252 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poorten-v-polland-nyappdiv-1964.