From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Artache v. Goldin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 1991
173 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Summary

holding that a discharged lawyer was "entitled to a charging lien for the reasonable value of services rendered prior to the date of substitution of counsel"

Summary of this case from In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.

Opinion

May 28, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the facts, with costs, and a charging lien in the amount of $37,500 is fixed in favor of the appellant.

We find that the weight of the credible evidence established that the appellant was discharged without cause. The appellant's representation of the plaintiff was entirely competent and successful up until the time of his discharge. In addition, a potential conflict of interest involving the appellant was fully disclosed to the plaintiff and she chose to continue to be represented by the appellant. Indeed, the discharge occurred solely as a result of a fee dispute. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a charging lien for the reasonable value of services rendered prior to the date of substitution of counsel (see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454; Luciano v Trabucco, 159 A.D.2d 695; Judiciary Law § 475). We find the reasonable value of the work performed on behalf of the plaintiff for which the appellant was not compensated to be $37,500. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Artache v. Goldin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 28, 1991
173 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

holding that a discharged lawyer was "entitled to a charging lien for the reasonable value of services rendered prior to the date of substitution of counsel"

Summary of this case from In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.

holding that if an attorney is discharged without cause, he is entitled to a charging lien for the reasonable value of his services rendered prior to the date of the substitution of counsel where his representation was entirely competent and successful up until his discharge, any potential conflict of interest was disclosed and the plaintiff chose to continue to be represented by the attorney, and the discharge of the attorney occurred solely because of a fee dispute

Summary of this case from In re Bruno

In Artache v Goldin (173 AD2d 667), this Court awarded the plaintiff Arnold Brenhouse, the former attorney for Carmen Artache, a charging lien in the amount of $37,500.

Summary of this case from Brenhouse v. Barbara
Case details for

Artache v. Goldin

Case Details

Full title:CARMEN ARTACHE, Respondent, v. JERROLD GOLDIN, Defendant, and ARNOLD A…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 28, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
570 N.Y.S.2d 238

Citing Cases

Smerda v. City of New York

We reverse and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination as to the amount of…

Shalom Toy, Inc. v. Each & Every One of the Members of the New York Property Insurance Underwritting Ass'n

Neither party has established whether MBA's discharge was with or without cause, and the IAS Court did not…