ALTERMAN v. The Wallack Firm, P.C., Nonparty–Respondent. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael L. Katz, J.), entered June 24, 2025, which granted the motion of nonparty respondent The Wallack Firm, P.C. (TWF), for a charging lien in the amount of $187,824.61, plus prejudgment interest from February 19, 2024, and directed payment from funds held in escrow by plaintiff's counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding TWF a charging lien against defendant (Judiciary Law § 475; see Harper v. Ramalho de Almeida, 234 A.D.3d 484, 484, 225 N.Y.S.3d 93 [1st Dept. 2025];  Elias v. Elias, 224 A.D.3d 500, 500, 203 N.Y.S.3d 338 [1st Dept. 2024] ).  TWF submitted an executed retainer agreement, along with evidence that it regularly invoiced defendant in accordance with that agreement.  In addition, on October 27, 2022, defendant entered into a written payment agreement with TWF under which she agreed to make three payments totaling $100,000 toward her outstanding balance.  In that agreement, defendant expressly acknowledged that those payments would not satisfy the balance in full and that she remained obligated to pay the balance pursuant to the retainer agreement.  The record further demonstrates that defendant did not contemporaneously object to the invoices during TWF's years-long representation.  Indeed, in a September 23, 2023 email, defendant acknowledged the fees owed to TWF and apologized for her conduct toward her counsel.  TWF further demonstrated that its representation of defendant did not end because of attorney misconduct, discharge for cause, or unjustifiable abandonment.  In addition, defendant received a distributive award in the amount of $1,080,000, upon which a charging lien could attach.

The court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing because defendant did not make a prima facie showing of attorney misconduct or timely object to the fees charged (see Lee v. Nejat, 244 A.D.3d 559, 560, 244 N.Y.S.3d 110 [1st Dept. 2025] ).

Finally, the motion court correctly held that it retained jurisdiction to determine TWF's charging lien motion despite the husband's death.  Defendant's right to a distributive award vested and the Judgment of Divorce was signed prior to the husband's death, thus “all that remain[ed] to be done in the action ․ [was] for the court to effectuate a ministerial act” (Bomer v. Dean, 195 A.D.3d 1518, 1519–1520, 151 N.Y.S.3d 287 [4th Dept. 2021];  see Cristando v. Lozada, 118 A.D.3d 846, 847, 987 N.Y.S.2d 621 [2d Dept. 2014] ).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.