Robinson v. Friedman Management Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Friedman Management Corp.

49 A.D.3d 436, 854 N.Y.2d 68

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 436 (Robinson v. Friedman Management 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

Robinson v. Friedman Management Corp., 49 A.D.3d 436, 854 N.Y.2d 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[437]*437The court properly concluded that plaintiffs attorney was entitled to a charging lien, inasmuch as the termination of the representation did not result from attorney misconduct, discharge for cause, or unjustified abandonment by the attorney (see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459, 464 [1996]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there was no need for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether counsel’s withdrawal was justifiable, where there is adequate evidence showing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (see Klagsbrun v Klagsbrun, 192 AD2d 306 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 846 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

[437]*437The court properly concluded that plaintiffs attorney was entitled to a charging lien, inasmuch as the termination of the representation did not result from attorney misconduct, discharge for cause, or unjustified abandonment by the attorney (see Klein v Eubank, 87 NY2d 459, 464 [1996]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there was no need for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether counsel’s withdrawal was justifiable, where there is adequate evidence showing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (see Klagsbrun v Klagsbrun, 192 AD2d 306 [1993], lv dismissed 82 NY2d 846 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 436, 854 N.Y.2d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-friedman-management-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack