Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Barnum v. Srogi

Barnum v. Srogi, 96 A.D.2d 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1983)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1983-07-11
Topic
general

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This appeal is from an order which vacated an attorney’s charging lien filed, pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law, against a portion of the proceeds due under a judgment rendered in this tax certiorari proceeding. Appellant contends that there was a fee-splitting agreement between its firm and T. Crouse Barnum, the attorney of record, which permitted them to share in any contingent fee received as a result of the tax assessment litigation. In its petition, appellant alleges claims which may form the basis for a contractual claim (see People v Keeffe, 50 NY2d 149, 155), but we find no allegations sufficient to support a lien against the moneys available for satisfaction of the judgment (cf.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Barnum v. Srogi. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This appeal is from an order which vacated an attorney’s charging lien filed, pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law, against a portion of the proceeds due under a judgment rendered in this tax certiorari proceeding. Appellant contends that there was a fee-splitting agreement between its firm and T. Crouse Barnum, the attorney of record, which permitted them to share in any contingent fee received as a result of the tax assessment litigation. In its petition, appellant alleges claims which may form the basis for a contractual claim (see People v Keeffe, 50 NY2d 149, 155), but we find no allegations sufficient to support a lien against the moneys available for satisfaction of the judgment (cf. Matter of Gutchess, 90 *724 AD2d 663, 664). Only the attorney of record herein is entitled to an attorney’s statutory or charging lien (Melzer v 195 Broadway Corp., 18 AD2d 1108; Friedland v 601 West 149th St., 15 AD2d 742; Matter of Sebring, 238 App Div 281; 7 NY Jur 2d, Attorneys at Law, § 176, pp 98-99). Appellant acknowledges that T. Crouse Barnum was the attorney of record, and that the firm of Smith, Sovik, Kendrick, McAuliffe & Schwarzer, P. C., was retained as trial and appellate counsel. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Tenney, J. — attorney’s lien.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.