Opinion
14922 File No. 4098A/96 Case No. 2020–04750
12-28-2021
In the MATTER OF Robert A. KOEPPEL, Deceased. Richenthal, Abrams and Moss et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. William W. Koeppel, Respondent–Respondent.
Law Offices of Craig Avedisian, P.C., New York (Craig Avedisian of counsel), and Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Jessica M. Baquet of counsel), for appellants.
Law Offices of Craig Avedisian, P.C., New York (Craig Avedisian of counsel), and Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Jessica M. Baquet of counsel), for appellants.
Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Gonza´lez, Rodriguez, JJ.
Decree, Surrogate's Court, New York County (Rita Mella, S.), entered on or about October 14, 2020, which to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied petitioner firms a charging lien against their client's (respondent) contingent future remainder interest in his father's testamentary trust, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and petitioner firms are granted a charging lien against respondent's contingent future remainder interest in his father's testamentary trust.
Respondent's contingent future remainder interest in his father's testamentary trust is subject to a charging lien ( Judiciary Law § 475 ; CPLR 5201[b], [c][2] ; EPTL 6–5.1, 7–1.5 ; see also Haser v. Haser, 271 A.D.2d 253, 255, 707 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2000] ). Respondent does not oppose the granting of the charging lien sought by petitioner firms.