Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellant's motion is granted to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.
It is well settled that an attorney who has been discharged by his client without cause may invoke a retaining lien on the client's papers and files in his possession. The attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of his fees (see, Corby v. Citibank, 143 A.D.2d 587; Mint Factors v. Cedar Tide Corp., 133 A.D.2d 222; Pileggi v. Pileggi, 127 A.D.2d 751). An attorney's retaining lien must be respected (see, Artim v. Artim, 109 A.D.2d 811).
In the instant case, no exigent circumstances were established to support the court's order denying the motion by the appellant, who is the defendant's outgoing attorney, for a hearing (see, e.g., Rosen v. Rosen, 97 A.D.2d 837). Moreover, contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, in light of the various lawsuits involving the defendant's real estate, which is apparently his sole significant asset, we cannot agree that the appellant's interests are otherwise adequately protected. Significantly, we note that he was not awarded a charging lien in lieu of his retaining lien (compare, Rosen v. Rosen, supra). Accordingly, we remit this matter to the Supreme Court for the purpose of holding an expedited hearing to fix the amount due the appellant and the manner in which it should be paid (see, Katsaros v. Katsaros, 152 A.D.2d 539, 540; Marshall v. Katsaros, 152 A.D.2d 542; Pileggi v. Pileggi, 127 A.D.2d 751, supra; Artim v. Artim, 109 A.D.2d 811, supra; Petrillo v. Petrillo, 87 A.D.2d 607).
Furthermore, the defendant has made allegations which appear to charge that the appellant was discharged for cause. If it established that the appellant was discharged for cause, then the appellant would be entitled to neither a retaining lien nor compensation (see, Teichner v. W J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977). As this issue cannot be resolved on the instant record, it too should be considered at the hearing (see, Katsaros v. Katsaros, 152 A.D.2d 539, supra; Williams v. Hertz Corp., 75 A.D.2d 766). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.