Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Christopher DANIELS, Petitioner-Respondent, v. MONROE COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION UNIT, Respondent-Appellant, Legion Insurance Company, by Gab Robins North America, Inc., Respondent-Respondent, et al., Respondent.
Supreme Court properly determined that petitioner's attorneys have first priority to the proceeds of a settlement obtained by petitioner in connection with a work-related injury followed by, respectively, respondent Legion Insurance Company, by GAB Robins North America, Inc. (Legion), respondent Monroe County Child Support Collection Unit (CSEU) and respondent Robert Dykes. The attorneys for petitioner obtained the settlement on his behalf and thus have a “lien upon ․ [the] claim, which attaches to ․ the proceeds [of the settlement] thereof in whatever hands they may come” (Judiciary Law § 475; see Banque Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings Corp., 98 N.Y.2d 34, 37-39, 745 N.Y.S.2d 754, 772 N.E.2d 1112, rearg. denied 98 N.Y.2d 693, 747 N.Y.S.2d 411, 775 N.E.2d 1290). Contrary to the contention of CSEU, the statutory lien is not an “assignment, levy or process” over which CSEU's execution of judgments for unpaid child support has priority (CPLR 5234[b]; cf. Matter of Kitson & Kitson v. City of Yonkers, 10 A.D.3d 21, 26, 778 N.Y.S.2d 503). We reject the further contention of CSEU that the execution of its judgments takes priority over Legion's statutory lien imposed on the proceeds pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(1). The “inviolability of the lien given to a work[ers'] compensation carrier against any recovery by a compensation claimant” has long been recognized (Matter of Granger v. Urda, 44 N.Y.2d 91, 96, 404 N.Y.S.2d 319, 375 N.E.2d 380). As Legion properly concedes, however, the attorneys' charging lien takes priority over its lien (see § 29[1] ). We note that the legislative action seeking to “strengthen [ ] child support enforcement” left undisturbed Judiciary Law § 475 and Workers' Compensation Law § 29(1) (L. 1993, ch. 59). We therefore affirm the order.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 01, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)