Nat Kagan Meat & Poultry, Inc. v. Kalter
| Decision Date | 21 May 1979 |
| Citation | 70 A.D.2d 632,416 N.Y.S.2d 646 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | NAT KAGAN MEAT & POULTRY, INC., et al., Respondents, v. Ivan KALTER and Michael R. Gottlieb d/b/a Kalter & Gottlieb et al., Appellants. |
Hart & Hume, New York City (Cecil Holland, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Irwin S. Lampert, Goshen, for respondents.
Before SUOZZI, J. P., and O'CONNOR, RABIN and SHAPIRO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a legal malpractice action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated November 8, 1978, which denied their renewed motion for summary judgment.
Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements and the motion is granted.
A judicial determination fixing the value of a professional's services necessarily decides that there was no malpractice (Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N.Y. 150). This rule applies where an attorney seeks a charging lien for services rendered by him in the underlying action (see Judiciary Law, § 475) as well as to a plenary action for nonpayment of attorney's fees. The fact that section 475 of the Judiciary Law involves an In rem proceeding, in that the lien applies only to the proceeds of the particular underlying judicial proceeding (Matter of Regan v. Marco M. Frisone, Inc., 54 A.D.2d 1125, 388 N.Y.S.2d 798), does not make said rule inapplicable since the clients against whom the lien is sought were plaintiffs in the underlying judicial proceeding (here foreclosure of mortgages). Parties who are plaintiffs in an action are necessarily to be considered as having personally appeared therein and there is, therefore, personal appearance by them in the proceeding to fix a charging lien, which is ancillary to the underlying action.
The fact that Nat Kagan was not a named plaintiff in the underlying foreclosure proceeding (although he was one of the plaintiffs in the malpractice action) is of no moment in this case. The record shows that it is undenied that the Kagan corporation, which was a plaintiff in both the foreclosure and malpractice actions, was essentially the alter ego of Nat Kagan (see Shire Realty Corp. v. Schorr, 55 A.D.2d 356, 390 N.Y.S.2d 622). Also, as pointed out by Special Term in the proceeding brought pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law, "Nat Kagan was present in Court at all times that testimony was taken and * * * his attorney consulted with him on the day that the Court suggested the disposition which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schweizer v. Mulvehill
...71 (previous motion for summary judgment granted in favor of attorneys for an account stated); Nat Kagan Meat & Poultry, Inc. v. Kalter, 70 A.D.2d 632, 633, 416 N.Y.S.2d 646, 647 (2d Dep't 1979) (previous proceeding in which attorneys sought charging lien against clients). See also Koppelma......
-
Altamore v. Friedman
...a professional's services necessarily decides that there was no malpractice (Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N.Y. 150;" Nat Kagan Meat & Poultry v. Kalter, 70 A.D.2d 632, 416 N.Y.S.2d 646; see also, Hunt v. Godesky, 189 A.D.2d 854, 592 N.Y.S.2d 781). In the case before us, the same principles apply. ......
-
Heine v. Albin Gustafson Co.
...35 Misc.2d 126, 229 N.Y.S.2d 43; see also Tillotson v. Shulman, 73 A.D.2d 688, 423 N.Y.S.2d 236; and Nat Kagan Meat & Poultry, Inc. v. Kalter, 70 A.D.2d 632, 416 N.Y.S.2d 646 [legal malpractice] ). The doctrine is inapplicable where the malpractice is alleged to have occurred during a perio......
-
Bennett v. Kisluk
...disposes of any issue of malpractice. Felger v. Nichols, 35 Md.App. 182, 370 A.2d 141 (1977). In Nat Kagan Meat & Poultry, Inc. v. Kalter, 70 A.D.2d 632, 632, 416 N.Y.S.2d 646, 647 (1979), the court A judicial determination fixing the value of a professional's services necessarily decides t......