From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dresner v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 1997
242 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

September 22, 1997

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted in its entirety, and the respondent is directed to disburse funds to satisfy the attorney's lien from the proceeds of the condemnation award prior to the satisfaction of the tax liens.

It is well established that an attorney has a lien upon a client's cause of action. The lien comes into existence upon commencement of the action or proceeding ( see, LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, 85 N.Y.2d 462; Judiciary Law § 475). Indeed, "because a cause of action is a species of property, an attorney acquires a `vested property interest' in the cause of action at the signing of the retainer agreement and thus a `title to "property and rights to property"'" ( LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, supra, at 467, quoting Matter of City of New York [United States — Coblentz], 5 N.Y.2d 300, 307-308, cert denied sub nom. United States v. Coblentz, 363 U.S. 841). "Accordingly, the charging lien does not merely give an attorney an enforceable right against the property of another, it gives the attorney an equitable ownership interest in the client's cause of action. The client's property right in his own cause of action is what remains after transfer to the attorney of the agreed-upon share upon the signing of the retainer agreement ( Matter of City of New York, supra)" (LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, supra, at 467). Although the chronological priority of liens is a factor to be considered in determining priorities, it is not dispositive ( see, LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, supra).

On the facts of this case, where "the attorney's services created the fund at issue * * * the attorney's charging lien must be given effect, even though * * * prior lien[s] against the specific fund [exist]" ( LMWT Realty Corp. v. Davis Agency, supra, at 468; see also, Matter of Herlihy [State Tax Commn.], 274 App. Div. 342; compare, Matter of City of New York [United States — Coblentz], 11 A.D.2d 240, affd 12 N.Y.2d 1051).

O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Dresner v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 22, 1997
242 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Dresner v. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the ESTATE OF ROSLYN DRESNER, Deceased, Claimant, v…

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

Date published: Sep 22, 1997

Citations

242 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 780

Citing Cases

Lynch v. Incorporated Village of Northport

The SPADA firm has filed a cross-motion seeking the imposition of a charging lien upon plaintiff's ultimate…

Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings Corp.

LMWT Realty Corp. v Davis Agency Inc., 85 NY2d 462, 467 (1995). See also, Estate of Dresner v State of New…