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.
UPFRONT MEGATAINMENT, INC., formerly known as Upfront Entertainment, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Aliaune THIAM also known as Akon, Defendant. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Nonparty Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered June 3, 2022, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate nonparty Napoli Shkolnik PLLC's charging lien, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion denied, the lien reinstated, and the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the Napoli firm was terminated for cause.
The Napoli firm established prima facie that it was entitled to a charging lien under Judiciary Law § 475 (see Matter of Mason v. City of New York, 67 A.D.3d 475, 475, 889 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 2009]). Although the firm did not represent plaintiffs in this action, no party disputes that it was retained to negotiate the settlement agreement on which the action is based, and that its retainer agreement with plaintiffs entitled it to payments “for any amounts recovered” under the settlement agreement (see id.). The record also fails to show a clear intention by the Napoli firm to relinquish its contractual right to attorneys’ fees under the settlement agreement (see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v. Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 N.Y.3d 96, 104–105, 817 N.Y.S.2d 606, 850 N.E.2d 653 [2006]).
Furthermore, a law firm's right to enforce a charging lien under Judiciary Law § 475 is not forfeited in a case where the firm's representation is discontinued by mutual consent for reasons not rising to the level of misconduct or just cause (Klein v. Eubank, 87 N.Y.2d 459, 463, 640 N.Y.S.2d 443, 663 N.E.2d 599 [1996]). Thus, the issue of whether the Napoli firm was terminated for cause requires credibility determinations and fact-finding that warrant an evidentiary hearing (see Mason, 67 A.D.3d at 475–476, 889 N.Y.S.2d 24; Genton v. Arpeggio Rest., Inc., 232 A.D.2d 274, 275, 648 N.Y.S.2d 552 [1st Dept. 1996]), as none of the purported omissions that plaintiffs allege as a basis for terminating the firm's services constitute cause to discharge an attorney as a matter of law (see Friedman v. Park Cake, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 286, 287, 825 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept. 2006]).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 543
Decided: June 22, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)