You are here: / / Conflicting Evidence About Whether Attorney Discharged for Cause (Thereby...

Conflicting Evidence About Whether Attorney Discharged for Cause (Thereby Prohibiting Recovery of Attorneys Fees) Required Hearing

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have ruled that an attorney was not discharged for cause, thereby entitling the attorney to attorneys fees, without a hearing, because there was conflicting evidence on the issue.  The court explained when an attorney who has been discharged is entitled to attorneys fees:

A client has “an absolute right, at any time, with or without cause, to terminate the attorney-client relationship by discharging the attorney” … . Where the discharge is without cause, the attorney may recover the reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit … . In contrast, “[a]n attorney who is discharged for cause . . . is not entitled to compensation or a lien” … . An attorney who violates a disciplinary rule may be discharged for cause and is not entitled to fees for any services rendered … .

“Where there are conflicting claims as to . . . whether an outgoing attorney was discharged with or without cause, a hearing is necessary to resolve such dispute”… . Schultz v Hughes, 2013 NY slip Op 05891, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
Severance of Action Against Defendant Which Filed for Bankruptcy Proper
WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE PASSENGER IN PLAINTIFF’S CAR EXECUTED A RELEASE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF-DRIVER; DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION FROM PLAINTIFF FOR ANY INJURY SUFFERED BY THE PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SOCIAL SERVICES LAW ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE NOT PROVEN; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of “Physical Injury” Was Legally Insufficient
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 FORECLOSURE NOTICE, TO BE VALID, MUST ACCURATELY STATE THE DEFAULT AMOUNT AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BORROWER HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING HERE THE STATED AMOUNT WAS INACCURATE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE OF A MERGER SUBMITTED IN REPLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE STANDING ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Evidence Supported Finding Certificate of Acknowledgment Attached to Deed Was... Failure to Check Box on Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petitions