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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 20, 2008·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[437] The 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] The 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.

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

Pincite

49 A.D.3d 436 (Robinson v. Friedman Management Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related