From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lelekakis v. Kamamis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 2004
8 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-09032.

Decided June 28, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of an option to purchase certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated July 17, 2002, which, in effect, denied his motion to compel his former attorney, Ackerman, Levine, Cullen Brickman, LLP, n/k/a Ackerman, Levine, Cullen, Brickman Limmer, LLP, to relinquish its file with respect to this litigation to the plaintiff's new counsel, and directed that the file should be relinquished to his new attorney only upon payment of fees and disbursements due to his former attorney.

Jerome A. Wisselman, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (John Virdone of counsel), for appellant.

Ackerman, Levine, Cullen Brickman, LLP, n/k/a Ackerman, Levine, Cullen Brickman Limmer, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (John M. Brickman and Andrew J. Luskin of counsel), nonparty-respondent pro se.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under New York law, a client may discharge an attorney at any time, with or without cause ( see Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 457; Matter of Montgomery, 272 N.Y. 323, 326). However, "[a]n attorney who is discharged without cause possesses a common-law retaining lien on the client's file in his or her possession, which secures the attorney's right to the reasonable value of the services performed" ( see Eighteen Assoc. v. Nanjim Leasing Corp., 297 A.D.2d 358, 359). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, he had no cause to discharge his former attorney. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied his motion to compel the former attorney to relinquish its files with respect to this litigation, and directed that the file should be relinquished to the plaintiff's new attorney only upon payment of fees and disbursements due to the former attorney.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., SCHMIDT, RIVERA and SPOLZINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lelekakis v. Kamamis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 2004
8 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Lelekakis v. Kamamis

Case Details

Full title:ILIAS LELEKAKIS, ETC., appellant, v. STANLEY KAMAMIS, ET AL., defendants…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 904

Citing Cases

Nazario v. Ciafone

In support of that branch of the petition which was to compel the appellant to turn over the petitioner's…

Taylor v. Mercado

While there is nothing here to show indigency on the part of Plaintiff—Plaintiff did not even appear in…