r possession and is entitled to recover compensation from the client measured by the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered, regardless of whether that amount is more or less than the amount provided in the contract or retainer agreement” ( Sterling Corporate Tax Credit Fund XXV, L.P. v. Youngblood Senior Hous. Assoc., LLC, 115 A.D.3d 932, 932, 982 N.Y.S.2d 392; see Cohen v. Cohen, 183 A.D.2d 802, 803, 584 N.Y.S.2d 116). The retaining lien “is extinguished only when the court, which controls the functioning of the lien, orders turnover of the file in exchange for payment of the lawyer's fee or the posting of an adequate security therefor following a hearing” ( cohen v. cohen, 183 A.d.2d at 803, 584 N.y.s.2d 116). “absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled” ( mosiello v. veleNzuela, 84 a.d.3d 1188, 1189, 924 n.y.s.2d 480). A court may summarily determine that an attorney is charging excessive fees, limit those fees, and discharge the attorney's liens ( see Hom v. Hom, 210 A.D.2d 296, 622 N.Y.S.2d 282; Matter of Cox v. Scott, 10 A.D.2d 32, 197 N.Y.S.2d 60). Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's cross motion without holding a hearing to ascertain the amount of fees or reimbursement to which the respondents may be entitled ( see Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d at 1189, 924 N.Y.S.2d 480; Eighteen Assoc. v. Nanjim Leasing Corp., 297 A.D.2d 358, 359, 746 N.Y.S.2d 599; Trataros Constr. v. Rieck, 270 A.D.2d 104, 105, 704 N.Y.S.2d 470; see generally Notrica v. North Hills Holding Co., LLC, 105 A.D.3d 826, 826–827, 964 N.Y.S.2d 167). The gravamen of the plaintiff'scross motion was that the charging lien and retaining lien should be vacated because he had already paid the respondents a total of $53,763.99 in legal fees and he did not owe the respondents any additional legal fees.

rtunato & Fortunato, PLLC, which was to compel nonparty respondent Morelli Alters Ratner, LLP, to submit payment for disbursements and copying fees prior to the surrender of its litigation file in the action is granted. “Under New York law a client may discharge an attorney at any time, with or without cause” (Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 457, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570 ; see Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 43, 556 N.Y.S.2d 239, 555 N.E.2d 611 ). If a client discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney possesses a common-law retaining lien on the client's file in his or her possession and is entitled to recover compensation from the client measured by the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered, regardless of whether that amount is more or less than the amount provided in the contract or retainer agreement (see Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d at 457–458, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570 ; see also Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 924 N.Y.S.2d 480 ). “Absent evidence of discharge for cause, a court should not order turnover of an outgoing attorney's file before the client fully pays the attorney's disbursements or provides security therefor” (Warsop v. Novik, 50 A.D.3d 608, 609, 856 N.Y.S.2d 607 ; see Law Firm of Ravi Batra, P.C. v. Rabinowich, 77 A.D.3d 532, 909 N.Y.S.2d 706 ; Zito v. Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding, 58 A.D.3d 532, 533, 871 N.Y.S.2d 138 ; Gonzalez v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 347, 348, 846 N.Y.S.2d 92 ). In its opposition to that branch of the appellant's motion which was to compel payment of disbursements and copying fees prior to the surrender of its litigation file in the underlying action, the respondent failed to establish that the appellant was discharged for cause. The respondent's submission of an affidavit from the translator for the respondent's client was insufficient to oppose the motion, as the affidavit failed to state the translator's qualifications (see Rosenberg v. Piller, 116 A.D.3d 1023,

following cumulative remedies: (1) a charging lien, (2) a retaining lien, and/or (3) a plenary action in quantum meruit ( see Balestriere PLLC v. BanxCorp, 96 A.D.3d 497, 497, 947 N.Y.S.2d 7 [2012];Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Gelmin, 235 A.D.2d 218, 218–219, 651 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1997] ). A charging lien is a statutory remedy—codified in Judiciary Law § 475—that grants the attorney “a security interest in the favorable result of [the] litigation” ( Chadbourne & Parke, LLP v. AB Recur Finans, 18 A.D.3d at 223, 794 N.Y.S.2d 349;see Tangredi v. Warsop, 110 A.D.3d 788, 788, 972 N.Y.S.2d 657 [2013];Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter v. Gelmin, 235 A.D.2d at 219, 651 N.Y.S.2d 525). A retaining lien, on the other hand, permits the discharged attorney to retain the contents of the client's file until such time as the attorney has been paid or “the client has otherwise posted adequate security ensuring [the] payment [there]of” ( Oldendorf v. Oldendorf, 226 A.D.2d 790, 791, 640 N.Y.S.2d 308 [1996];see Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 924 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2011];Security Credit Sys. v. Perfetto, 242 A.D.2d 871, 871, 662 N.Y.S.2d 674 [1997];Adamson v. Wurtsboro Gardens Recreation Ctr., 229 A.D.2d 863, 864, 646 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1996] ). With respect to either lien, a hearing may be required to determine the amount of compensation due and owing to the discharged attorney. Here, however, we have no quarrel with Supreme Court's finding that the firm was entitled to an award of $10,884.14 based upon an account stated.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion is denied. “Under New York law a client may discharge an attorney at any time, with or without cause” ( Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 457, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570;see Campagnola v. Mulholland, Minion & Roe, 76 N.Y.2d 38, 43, 556 N.Y.S.2d 239, 555 N.E.2d 611). If a client discharges an attorney without cause, the attorney possesses a common-law retaining lien on the client's file in his or her possession and is entitled to recover compensation from the client measured by the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered, regardless of whether that amount is more or less than the amount provided in the contract or retainer agreement ( see Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d at 457–458, 541 N.Y.S.2d 742, 539 N.E.2d 570;see also Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 924 N.Y.S.2d 480). In support of their motion, in effect, to compel the nonparty Benowich Law, LLP (hereinafter the law firm), to surrender its litigation file in this action, the defendants acknowledged that the law firm had asserted that the defendants owed it legal fees.

The rule is also not enforced when the client discharges the attorney for cause (seeTeichner v W & J Holsteins, Inc. , 64 NY2d 977 [1985] ; Bing Hui Chen v Speedway Plumbing Corp. , 138 AD3d 660 [2d Dept 2016] ; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP , 90 AD3d 696 [2d Dept 2011] ; Nazario v Ciafone , 65 AD3d 1240 [2d Dept 2009] ; Lelekakis v Kamamis , 8 AD3d 630 [2d Dept 2004] ). This Court notes that in many cases which hold that departing counsel must be reimbursed for its disbursements before the client's file is surrendered, it is the client who initiated the counsel's departure, rather than counsel (e.g.Maher v Quality Bus Serv., LLC , 144 AD3d 990 [2d Dept 2016] ; D'Ambrosio v Racanelli , 129 AD3d 900 [2d Dept 2015] ; Sterling Corporate Tax Credit Fund XXV, L.P. v Youngblood Senior Hous. Assoc., LLC , 115 AD3d 932 [2d Dept 2014] ; Mosiello v Velenzuela , 84 AD3d 1188 [2d Dept 2011] ). It is more logical to require payment of disbursements before the file is turned over when the client initiates the counsel's departure.

The retaining lien is extinguished only when the court, which controls the functioning of the lien, orders turnover of the file in exchange for payment of the lawyer's fee or the posting of an adequate security therefore following a hearing (Cohen v Cohen, 183 A.D.2d 802, 803 [2d Dept 1992]). Absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled (Mosiello v Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d 1188, 1189 [2d Dept 2011]). Although the court has the discretion to secure an attorney's legal fees and to order the files to be returned to the client before the fees have been paid, a court may not order the return of a client's file before the client has fully paid the attorney's disbursements (Cosgrove v Tops Mkts., Inc., 39 Fed.Appx. 661, 664 [2d Cir 2002], Tuff & Rumble Mgmt, v Landmark Distribs., 254 A.D.2d 15, 15 [1st Dept 1998]).

Mullaney & Gjelaj, P.L.L.C, incoming counsel for the plaintiff Diaz, now move to compel William Schwitzer & Associates, P.C, outgoing counsel for plaintiff Diaz, to turnover its entire file for the within action. An attorney who has been discharged by his or client without cause has a retaining lien on the client's litigation papers and files in his or her possession (see Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d 1188, 1189 [2 Dept. 2011] citing Lai Ling Cheng v Madansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 457-458 [1989]; Robinson v. Rogers, 237 NY 467, 470-471 [1924]; Lelekaksi v Kamanis, 8 A.D.3d 630 [2 Dept. 2004]). "Absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled" (Mosiello v. Velenzuela, at 1189 citing Theroux v. Theroux, 145 A.D.2d 625, 626 [2 Dept. 1988]); Mint Factors v Cedar Tide Corp., 133 A.D.2d 222 [2 Dept. 1987]).

The retaining lien "is extinguished only when the court, which controls the functioning of the lien, orders turnover of the file in exchange for payment of the lawyer's fee or the posting of an adequate security therefor [sic] following a hearing" ( Cohen v. Cohen, supra, at 803, 584 N.Y.S.2d 116 ). "Absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled" ( Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 A.D.3d 1188, 1189, 924 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2d Dept., 2011] ). However, " Judiciary Law § 475 cannot be an umbrella under which an attorney may seek shelter from the demands of a client for the return of excessive fees paid [...] It has long been recognized that courts have the traditional authority to supervise the charging of fees for professional services under the court's inherent and statutory power to regulate the practice of law" ( Hom v. Hom, 210 A.D.2d 296, 622 N.Y.S.2d 282 [2d Dept.1994] ).

The retaining lien "is extinguished only when the court, which controls the functioning of the lien, orders turnover of the file in exchange for payment of the lawyer's fee or the posting of an adequate security therefor [sic] following a hearing" (Cohen v. Cohen, supra at 803). "Absent exigent circumstances, the attorney may generally not be compelled to surrender the papers and files until an expedited hearing has been held to ascertain the amount of the fees or reimbursement to which he or she may be entitled" (Mosiello v. Velenzuela, 84 AD3d 1188, 1189, 924 N.Y.S.2d 480 [2d Dept., 2011]). However, "Judiciary Law §475 cannot be an umbrella under which an attorney may seek shelter from the demands of a client for the return of excessive fees paid [...