Opinion
# 2015-050-015 Claim No. 123887 Motion No. M-86117
03-26-2015
JANE MARTIN WATSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Debra Reiser, Esq. Claimant's Incoming Attorney: Siegel & Coonerty, LLP By: Andrew W. Siegel, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Theresa N. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
A motion by the attorney of record for claimant for a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475. The Court finds that the affirmation in partial opposition is equivocal as to whether or not the moving attorney is entitled to a lien and, if yes, the amount thereof. This motion is referred for determination to a hearing which shall be scheduled at the next conference.
Case information
UID: | 2015-050-015 |
Claimant(s): | JANE MARTIN WATSON |
Claimant short name: | WATSON |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only proper defendant, the State of New York. |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 123887 |
Motion number(s): | M-86117 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
Claimant's attorney: | Debra Reiser, Esq. Claimant's Incoming Attorney: Siegel & Coonerty, LLP By: Andrew W. Siegel, Esq. |
Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Theresa N. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 26, 2015 |
City: | Hauppauge |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
This is a motion by the attorney of record for claimant for a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475. The motion is partially opposed by the incoming law firm for the claimant, Siegel & Coonerty, LLP.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that it has accepted the papers in partial opposition although they were served February 5, 2015 - after the return date of the motion (January 28, 2015). Counsel for Siegel & Coonerty, LLP requested an extension of time in correspondence to the Court (on notice to the moving attorney and defendant's attorney) and, in a letter to all counsel dated February 25, 2015, the Court granted his request to the extent it deemed the papers in opposition timely filed.
The Court finds that the affirmation in partial opposition is equivocal as to whether or not the moving attorney is entitled to a lien and, if yes, the amount thereof. Accordingly, this motion is referred for determination to a hearing which shall be scheduled at a conference to be held on May 20, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. at which time the attorneys for the outgoing and incoming firms and defense counsel shall be present at the chambers of the undersigned.
March 26, 2015
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion by claimant's attorney of record for a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475:
1. Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support with Exhibits A through F.
2. Affirmation in Partial Opposition with Exhibits A and B.