Charnow v. Charnow
| Decision Date | 16 December 2015 |
| Citation | 22 N.Y.S.3d 126,134 A.D.3d 875 |
| Parties | Paula CHARNOW, respondent, v. Howard CHARNOW, defendant; McCarthy Fingar LLP, nonparty-appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
134 A.D.3d 875
22 N.Y.S.3d 126
Paula CHARNOW, respondent,
v.
Howard CHARNOW, defendant;
McCarthy Fingar LLP, nonparty-appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 16, 2015.
McCarthy Fingar LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Dolores Gebhardt of counsel), nonparty-appellant pro se.
Aaron R. Pam, White Plains, NY, for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Francis A. Nicolai, J.), entered April 14, 2014. The order denied the motion of the nonparty McCarthy Fingar LLP to enforce a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the sum of $150,000 against the plaintiff's share of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The nonparty McCarthy Fingar LLP (hereinafter McCarthy Fingar) represented the plaintiff during divorce proceedings that were eventually resolved by a stipulation of settlement and subsequent judgment of divorce. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement and the judgment, the defendant was to pay $150,000 directly to McCarthy Fingar to cover the plaintiff's legal fees. When the defendant failed to make the payments, McCarthy Fingar moved to enforce a charging lien against the plaintiff's one-half share of the net proceeds from the future
sale of the marital residence. The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground that under the terms of the settlement agreement, McCarthy Fingar's sole recourse was to look to the defendant for payment. We affirm, but for a different reason.
"A charging lien is a security interest in the favorable result of litigation, giving the attorney equitable ownership interest in the client's cause of action and ensuring that the attorney can collect his fee from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dayan v. Dayan
...now appears that the right to a charging lien must be held in abeyance in order to satisfy the dictates of Charnow v. Charnow, 134 A.D.3d 875, 876, 22 N.Y.S.3d 126 (2d Dept., 2015).In Charnow the Appellate Division, Second Department held that:"a charging lien is a security interest in the ......
-
Dayan v. Dayan, 54225/2015
...now appears that the right to a charging lien must be held in abeyance in order to satisfy the dictates of Charnow v. Charnow (134 AD3d 875, 876, 22 N.Y.S.3d 126 [2d Dept., 2015]). In Charnow the Appellate Division, Second Department held that:"a charging lien is a security interest in the ......
- Pipitone v. Mineola Realty Assocs.
-
Avaras v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist.
... ... has created for that purpose on behalf of the client.” ... Charnow v. Charnow , 134 A.D.3d 875, 876 (2d ... Dep't 2015) (citation omitted). New York Judiciary Law ... § 475 (“Section 475”) “governs ... ...
-
1.73 - 7. Attorney Liens To Protect Fees
...[379] . Jud. Law § 475, as amended 2012. With regard to retaining and charging liens in matrimonial actions, see Charnow v. Charnow, 134 A.D.3d 875, 22 N.Y.S.3d 126 (2d Dep’t, 2015); Dayan v. Dayan, 58 Misc.3d 957, 66 N.Y.S.3d 850 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 2017). [380] . Gyabaah v. Rivlab Transp......