Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen v. Richard
Decision Date | 12 January 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 82 Civ. 3723 (RWS).,82 Civ. 3723 (RWS). |
Citation | 656 F. Supp. 196 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Parties | Petition of ROSENMAN COLIN FREUND LEWIS & COHEN for an Adjudication of its Rights in the Matter of Julian Sherrier, Plaintiff, v. Bernice RICHARD, Defendant. |
Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen, New York City, pro se; J. Kelley Nevling, Jr., Steven M. Dixon, Audry Weintrob, of counsel.
Brown & Seymour, New York City, for defendant; Whitney North Seymour, Jr., Craig A. Landy, of counsel.
In this action to enforce an attorney's lien, petitioner Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen ("Rosenman Colin") has moved for an order striking respondent Bernice Richard's ("Richard") demand for a jury trial on the grounds that the instant petition is equitable in nature and therefore must be tried to the court. The motion is hereby granted.
This proceeding was brought by Rosenman Colin to determine the amount of, and to enforce, its attorney's charging lien on the judgment awarded to Richard in the Sherrier v. Richard litigation tried before this court. The petition asks in general terms that the court fix and determine the amount of the fees and disbursements to be paid by Richard to Rosenman Colin. Richard argues that Rosenman Colin has throughout this proceeding based its claim on a breach of contract theory, which, as a legal claim rather than an equitable claim, must be tried by a jury.
In federal civil suits the right to a jury trial is governed by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." It is well-established that the Seventh Amendment does not create any right to a jury in actions which are equitable in nature. Indeed, it is a Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 337, 86 S.Ct. 467, 477, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966). Accord, e.g., In re Gartenberg, 636 F.2d 16, 18 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1979, 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981); Shore v. Parklane Hosiery Co., 565 F.2d 815, 819 (2d Cir. 1977), aff'd, 439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979).
Actions to enforce or foreclose on a lien have always been recognized to be equitable in nature, and the courts have uniformly held that the right to a jury trial does not exist in such actions. Walter E. Heller & Co. v. O/S Sonny V, 595 F.2d 968, 976 n. 7 (5th Cir.1979) (); Rozelle v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 471 F.2d 29, 31 (10th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 921, 93 S.Ct. 1549, 36 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973) (); Damsky v. Zavatt, 289 F.2d 46, 53 (2d Cir.1961) (Friendly, J.) ( ); United States v. L.D.T. Corp., 302 F.Supp. 990, 991 (E.D.Pa. 1969) (same); cf. FDIC v. New London Enterprises, Ltd., 619 F.2d 1099, 1102-03 (5th Cir.1980) ( ).
The instant proceeding is one to ascertain the amount of, and to enforce, Rosenman Colin's charging lien against the judgment obtained by Richard in the Sherrier v. Richard action. Such proceedings are expressly authorized by New York Judiciary Law § 475, which provides in relevant part as follows:
From the commencement of an action ... the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client's cause of action ... which attached to a ... judgment ... in his client's favor, and the proceeds thereof in whatever hands they may come.... The court upon petition of the client or attorney may determine and enforce the lien.
The procedure established by this statute for the enforcement of attorneys' charging liens is directly comparable to the lien enforcement procedures involved in the cases cited above. Accordingly, the cause of action to enforce an attorneys' lien is equitable in nature, and the courts, both federal and state, have uniformly held this to be so. See e.g., Markakis v. The S.S. Mparmpa Christos, 267 F.2d 926, 927 (2d Cir.1959) (); Machcinski v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 272 F. 920, 922 (2d Cir.1921) (); In re King, 168 N.Y. 53, 59, 60 N.E. 1054, 1056 (1901) () ; In re Britton's Will, 187 Misc. 70, 60 N.Y.S.2d 466, 474 (Monroe County Surr. Ct. 1946) ("As shown by the above cited cases, all proceedings under this section 475 have been held equitable in nature, and no right to jury trial exists in respect thereto").
Although the federal courts have not explicitly addressed the right to a jury trial in a proceeding to enforce an attorney's lien, the courts of New York State, interpreting a constitutional provision substantially similar in intent to the Seventh Amendment,1 have uniformly held that a party to such a proceeding does not have a right to a jury trial. In re King, supra, 168 N.Y. at 58, 60 N.E. at 1056 () ; Flores v. Barricella, 123 A.D.2d 600, 506 N.Y.S.2d 885, 886 (2d Dep't 1986) ( ); In re Britton's Will, supra, 60 N.Y.S.2d at 474.
The question at issue here is whether this court should treat this petition as an action at law due to Rosenman Colin's reliance on the underlying retainer agreement between it and Richard. "A suit to determine and adjudicate the amount of fees owing to a lawyer by a client under a contingent fee retainer contract," without more, is a traditional action at law for damages. Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 223, 83 S.Ct. 609, 611, 9 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963). Nevertheless, the fact that this action was brought to enforce an attorney's lien makes this a different case, despite the underlying contract. Therefore, Simler v. Conner, which did not concern an attorney's lien, is not controlling. Cf. In re Britton's Will, 60 N.Y.S.2d at 474 () .
The fact that the right to an attorney's lien is premised on a retainer agreement between the parties, rather than on a claim in quantum meruit, does not call for a jury trial in this case. In virtually every action to foreclose a lien or mortgage, there is an underlying contract which is secured by the lien or mortgage in question: mortgages are normally given to secure a promissory note or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petition of Rosenman & Colin, s. 886
...Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen (In re Sherrier v. Richard), 600 F.Supp. 527 (S.D.N.Y.1984); Petition of Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen (In re Sherrier v. Richard), 656 F.Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y.1987). We summarize only those facts necessary for an understanding of this Bernice Richard is a weal......
-
United States v. Lesonik
...309, 313 (D.N.J. 1994) ("it is clear that no right to a jury trial exists on the foreclosure issue"); Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen v. Richard 656 F. Supp. 196, 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (collecting cases and noting that "[a]ctions to enforce or foreclose on a lien have always been recogniz......
-
Hayt, Hayt & Landau v. Hall
...of this Court; see Beecher v. Vogt Manufacturing Co., 227 N.Y. 468, 471-72, 125 N.E. 831; see Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis & Cohen v. Richard, 656 F.Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y.1987); see Marsano v. State Bank of Albany, 27 A.D.2d 411, 413, 279 N.Y.S.2d 817; 7 N.Y.Jur.2d, Attorneys At Law, Section 19......