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.
ROBERT P. LYNN, JR., LLC, respondent, v. Patrick J. PURCELL, et al., appellants.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendants are not entitled to a share of attorneys' fees in connection with a fee-sharing agreement, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered August 9, 2007, as denied their motion to direct the plaintiff to deposit one-half of the total attorneys' fees with the court or into escrow.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In this action between co-counsel regarding a fee-sharing agreement where a contingency fee was paid to the plaintiff law firm upon settlement of the client's case, the defendants moved to direct the plaintiff to deposit one-half of the total attorneys' fees with the court or in escrow. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the motion. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court did determine that the defendants established their right to a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 and were entitled to have that lien judicially determined according to principles of contract law (see Tutarashvili v. Barzilay, 39 A.D.3d 851, 832 N.Y.S.2d 810; Smerda v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 511, 512, 776 N.Y.S.2d 86; Kaplan v. Reuss, 113 A.D.2d 184, 186, 495 N.Y.S.2d 404, affd. 68 N.Y.2d 693, 506 N.Y.S.2d 304, 497 N.E.2d 671; cf. Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 183, 190, 754 N.Y.S.2d 220). Nevertheless, inasmuch as the defendants' claim against the plaintiff is for money only, the defendants were required to establish a basis for what, in effect, was their request for an attachment of the funds traceable to the fee itself. They failed to establish any such basis (see CPLR 6201[3]; cf. Fischer-Hansen v. Brooklyn Hgts. R.R. Co., 173 N.Y. 492, 502, 66 N.E. 395; Corsi v. Vroman, 37 A.D.3d 397, 829 N.Y.S.2d 234).
In light of our determination, we do not reach the plaintiff's remaining contention.
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: December 02, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)