Opinion
April 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).
After representing plaintiff-respondent on a motion for maintenance and support arrears in a matrimonial action, appellant law firm moved to withdraw as counsel and sought a charging lien in addition to a retaining lien. The Supreme Court granted appellant's motion to withdraw as counsel and referred the issues of whether "just cause" existed for the withdrawal as well as the amount of the charging lien to a Special Referee to hear and report. The motion for a retaining lien was denied. The court limited the amount of any charging lien to which appellant would be entitled to counsel fees awarded plaintiff-respondent or her subsequent counsel.
The Supreme Court erred in limiting the charging lien to an award of attorney's fees. Section 475 Jud. of the Judiciary Law provides that an "attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client's cause of action * * * which attaches to a verdict, report, determination, decision, judgment or final order in his client's favor". Although a charging lien does not attach to an award of alimony and maintenance (Turner v. Woolworth, 221 N.Y. 425), section 475 does not preclude the enforcement of such lien upon any other award made in the action (Rosen v. Rosen, 97 A.D.2d 837; Williams v. Hertz Corp., 75 A.D.2d 766).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.