| Callaghan v Callaghan |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01290 [48 AD3d 500] |
| February 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Janet Callaghan, Respondent, v Gerard A. Callaghan,Defendant. Curtis & Associates, P.C., Nonparty Appellant. |
—[*1] David M. Bushman, Nanuet, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff's former attorney, Curtis &Associates, P.C., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Montagnino,R.), dated November 3, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied its motion to establish a charginglien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the amount of $373,030.06.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion of theplaintiff's former attorney Curtis & Associates, P.C., which was for a charging lien pursuant toJudiciary Law § 475 is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,Westchester County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.
An attorney who is discharged without cause before the completion of services may recoverthe reasonable value of his or her services in quantum meruit (see Campagnola v Mulholland,Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d 38, 44 [1990]; Teichner v W & J Holsteins, 64 NY2d 977,979 [1985]; Bruk v Albin, 270 AD2d 441, 442 [2000]). An attorney who is dischargedfor cause, however, is not entitled to compensation or a lien (see Campagnola v Mulholland,Minion & Roe, 76 NY2d at 44; Teichner v W & J Holsteins, 64 NY2d at 979;Orendick v Chiodo, 272 AD2d 901, 902 [2000]; Cohen v Cohen, 183 AD2d 802,804 [1992]).[*2]
Here, the plaintiff's claims with respect to the conduct ofher former attorney, the nonparty Curtis & Associates, P.C. (hereinafter Curtis), consist solely ofdissatisfaction with reasonable strategic choices regarding litigation. Such choices do not, as amatter of law, constitute cause for the discharge of an attorney (see Rosner v Paley, 65NY2d 736, 738 [1985]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein v Zuker, 203 AD2d 119[1994]). Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish a discharge for cause, and the Supreme Courtincorrectly determined that Curtis was not entitled to any attorney's fee.
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearingand determination on the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered (see Lai LingCheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73 NY2d 454, 457-458 [1989]), whatever that amount maybe. In making that determination, "the court should consider 'evidence of the time and skillrequired in that case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney's experience, ability, andreputation, the client's benefit from the services, and the fee usually charged by other attorneysfor similar services' " (Padilla vSansivieri, 31 AD3d 64, 67 [2006], quoting Rosenzweig v Gomez, 250 AD2d664 [1998]; see Potts v Hines, 144 AD2d 189, 190 [1988]). Spolzino, J.P., Lifson,Santucci and Covello, JJ., concur.