Opinion
April 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department.
Although the Civil Court had no jurisdiction over appellant escrowee, respondent tenant's former attorney, at the time it directed him to turn over the rent money that the tenant had deposited with him during the pendency of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal rent overcharge proceeding ( Kaplan v Kaplan, 94 A.D.2d 788; Matter of Stuberfield, 284 App. Div. 989; Argersinger's Dept. Store v. Shapiro Bros. Co., 115 Misc.2d 850), appellant waived this jurisdictional challenge when he voluntarily turned over the money to the landlord's attorney and appeared in this nonpayment proceeding seeking affirmative relief.
Appellant is not entitled to any part of the escrow funds since neither a common-law retaining lien nor statutory charging lien attached to the money given to him for the payment of rent ( see, Matter of Hollins, 197 N.Y. 361, 364; Mayeri Corp. v. Shea Gould, 112 Misc.2d 734). Although appellant had previously obtained a recovery for his client in the overcharge proceedings, and was contractually entitled to a contingency fee, the rent money in escrow was not the proceeds of a determination in the client's favor ( see, Surdam v. Marine Midland Bank, 198 A.D.2d 578).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.