LEE v. PLLC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), entered November 21, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the request of plaintiff's former counsel, Edelman, Krasin & Jaye PLLC, for a charging lien and a retaining lien, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court acted properly in summarily granting a charging and a retaining lien to plaintiff's former counsel at Edelman, Krasin & Jaye PLLC (EKJ) (see generally Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Gelmin, 235 A.D.2d 218, 218–219, 651 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1st Dept. 1997]).

Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that EKJ was discharged for cause and thus not entitled to any compensation or a retaining lien (see Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 43–44, 556 N.Y.S.2d 239, 555 N.E.2d 611 [1990]).  Plaintiff admits that EKJ did not commit any malpractice or misconduct and none of plaintiff's complaints about EKJ rise above the level of “generalized dissatisfaction,” “dissatisfaction with reasonable strategic choices,” or “personality conflicts, misunderstandings or differences of opinion having nothing to do with any impropriety” (see Klein v. Eubank, 87 N.Y.2d 459, 463–464, 640 N.Y.S.2d 443, 663 N.E.2d 599 [1996];  Tirado–Sottosanyti v. Crowley, 220 A.D.3d 820, 822, 198 N.Y.S.3d 150 [2d Dept. 2023];  Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 90 A.D.3d 696, 699, 934 N.Y.S.2d 467 [2d Dept. 2011]).  Thus, there was no need for a hearing (see Tirado–Sottosanyti, 220 A.D.3d at 822, 198 N.Y.S.3d 150).

The amount of work performed by EKJ and the nature of its contribution to the ultimate judgment are not relevant to the determination of whether to award a charging lien, as such a lien is available to any attorney of record in a matter and comes into existence upon commencement of the action or proceeding (see Judiciary Law § 475;  Klein, 87 N.Y.2d at 462, 640 N.Y.S.2d 443, 663 N.E.2d 599;  LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, Inc., 85 N.Y.2d 462, 467, 626 N.Y.S.2d 39, 649 N.E.2d 1183 [1995]).

There is no evidence to support plaintiff's claims regarding her inability to pay the retaining lien or to otherwise obtain copies of the medical records in EKJ's file (see generally Cohen v. Cohen, 183 A.D.2d 802, 803, 584 N.Y.S.2d 116 [2d Dept. 1992];  Rosen v. Rosen, 97 A.D.2d 837, 837, 468 N.Y.S.2d 723 [2d Dept. 1983]).  While plaintiff argues that she could have presented such evidence at a hearing, she was required to first make a prima facie showing that a hearing was necessary, which she did not do.

Insofar as the documents reviewed by the court in camera were timely received and reviewed by this Court, there is no basis to dismiss this appeal for failure to file an adequate record.