From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aruck v. Aruck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Purple, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following Memorandum: It was error for Supreme Court to fix the amount of counsel's retaining lien without a hearing (see, Ventola v Ventola, 112 A.D.2d 291, 292-293; Petrillo v Petrillo, 87 A.D.2d 607; Gamble v Gamble, 78 A.D.2d 673; Yaron v Yaron, 58 A.D.2d 752). Plaintiff's contention that his counsel is not entitled to a retaining lien because he was discharged for cause is raised for the first time on appeal and will not be considered. We, therefore, remit this matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to fix the amount of the outgoing attorney's lien for his services and disbursements and conditioning the turnover of plaintiff's file on payment of the sum found to be due or the posting of security therefor (see, Yaron v Yaron, supra).


Summaries of

Aruck v. Aruck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Aruck v. Aruck

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. ARUCK, Appellant, v. JULIE A. ARUCK, Defendant. WALTER W…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)