From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weinberg v. Sultan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 22, 2016
145 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-22-2016

Sarah WEINBERG, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Leslie SULTAN, et al., Defendants, Kenneth J. Glassman, NonParty–Appellant.

Kenneth J. Glassman, New York, appellant pro se. Brennan Law Firm PLLC, New York (Kerry A. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.


Kenneth J. Glassman, New York, appellant pro se.

Brennan Law Firm PLLC, New York (Kerry A. Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 17, 2016, which denied nonparty appellant's motion for an order allowing him to release funds held by him as escrow agent to pay legal fees owed to him by plaintiff, his former client, and granted the cross motion of nonparty Brennan Law Firm PLLC, plaintiff's successor counsel, to the extent of determining that the escrow funds should be transferred to that firm to be held in escrow, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant, who represented plaintiff in unsuccessful litigation seeking, among other things, to rescind the sale of a building that she had owned (Weinberg v. Sultan, 142 A.D.3d 767, 37 N.Y.S.3d 13 [1st Dept. 2016] ), held the net proceeds of that sale in escrow pursuant to a court-ordered stipulation “until further Order of the court” or until plaintiff “ withdraws with prejudice the cause of action for rescission” of the sale. Although appellant participated in the agreement that resulted in the net sales proceeds being placed in escrow, he has no statutory charging lien as to those funds since they were not the proceeds of the “favorable result of litigation” (Chadbourne & Parke, LLP v. AB Recur Finans, 18 A.D.3d 222, 223, 794 N.Y.S.2d 349 [1st Dept.2005] ; Judiciary Law § 475 ). Nor does appellant have a retaining lien that attaches to the escrow fund, since the funds came into his possession in his capacity as escrow agent, to be held by him as a fiduciary, subject to a stipulation governing disposition of the funds (see PIK Record Co. v. Eckstein, 226 A.D.2d 122, 640 N.Y.S.2d 49 [1st Dept.1996] ; Schelter v. Schelter, 206 A.D.2d 865, 614 N.Y.S.2d 853 [4th Dept.1994] ; Marsano v. State Bank of Albany, 27 A.D.2d 411, 414, 279 N.Y.S.2d 817 [3d Dept.1967],appeal dismissed 23 N.Y.2d 1018, 299 N.Y.S.2d 458, 247 N.E.2d 286 [1969] ).

FRIEDMAN, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, WEBBER, KAHN, GESMER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weinberg v. Sultan

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 22, 2016
145 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Weinberg v. Sultan

Case Details

Full title:Sarah WEINBERG, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Leslie SULTAN, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 22, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8607
42 N.Y.S.3d 789

Citing Cases

Glassman v. Weinberg

In May 2013, the parties entered into a retainer agreement pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to represent…