Summary
holding that attorney's recovery is limited to disbursements because the client made no recovery in the underlying action, for which there was a contingent fee arrangement
Summary of this case from Dweck Law Firm, L.L.P. v. MannOpinion
October 1, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Since it appears that appellant was retained on a contingency fee basis, and that the underlying action in which appellant represented plaintiff concluded during the pendency of the appeal without any recovery by plaintiff, the amount owed by plaintiff to appellant is limited to the latter's disbursements ( see, Steves v. Serlin, 125 A.D.2d 780). Absent proof of discharge for cause, appellant cannot be compelled to give up plaintiff's file before such disbursements are paid or secured ( see, Security Credit Sys. v. Perfetto, 242 A.D.2d 871). Appellant's claim that the incoming attorney should be disqualified from representing plaintiff in the underlying action has been rendered moot by the dismissal of that action. We have considered appellant's other claims and find them to be without merit. Were we not dismissing the appeal from the second, duplicative, order, we would modify it in the identical manner as we do the first order.
Concur — Lerner, P.J., Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.