You are here: / / Client’s Motion to Quash Attorney’s Charging Lien Properly...

Client’s Motion to Quash Attorney’s Charging Lien Properly Granted Without a Hearing/No “Conflicting Facts” Concerning Whether the Attorney Was Discharged Was For Cause

The Second Department determined the client’s motion to quash the attorney’s charging lien was properly granted (without a hearing) because the attorney failed to raise a question of fact whether his discharge was for cause:

A client has “an absolute right, at any time, with or without cause, to terminate the attorney-client relationship by discharging the attorney” … . “Where an attorney’s representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien” (…see Judiciary Law § 475…). In contrast, “[a]n attorney who is discharged for cause . . . is not entitled to compensation or a lien” … . “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” … .

On his motion to quash Wilson’s charging lien, Romero submitted evidence in support of his contention that the plaintiff had discharged Wilson for cause. In opposition, Wilson failed to dispute or address Romero’s factual assertions and, thus, there were no “conflicting claims” as to whether the discharge was for cause … . Sacarello v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00350, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

You might also like
19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT.
Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was a Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Snow Removal (from the Ramp) Created the Dangerous Condition
Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem
THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER A 12 YEAR DELAY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE BROKER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS ENTITLED TO A BROKERAGE FEE; THE BROKERAGE AGREEMENT EXPIRED BY ITS OWN TERMS BEFORE THE LEASE TOOK EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
2 1/2 Year Delay In Correcting Location of the Slip and Fall Described in the Notice of Claim Prejudiced the Defendant/Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice Properly Denied

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

First Degree Burglary Conviction Upheld Even though the Residential Portion... Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed...