Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

Petrillo v. Petrillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 15, 1982

87 A.D.2d 607; 448 N.Y.S.2d 44; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15902

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Rosen v. Rosen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Artim v. Artim (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Giura v. Rodriguez (Civil Court of the City of New York 2017)
Aruck v. Aruck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Andreiev v. Keller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Corby v. Citibank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Pileggi v. Pileggi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Factors v. Cedar Tide Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
M.E. v. S.G. (New York Family Court 1984)
Petrillo v. Petrillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burchell, J.), dated March 11, 1981, as directed appellants to deliver to plaintiff’s new counsel the file in the action. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements and matter remitted to Special Term for a hearing to fix the amount of the outgoing attorneys’ lien, if any, and to. condition the turnover upon payment of the sum thereby found to be due from plaintiff to her former attorneys or the posting of security therefor. The hearing shall proceed expeditiously. Plaintiff’s former attorneys have a common-law retaining lien on the papers in their possession, and the circumstances are not so exigent as to require turnover of the papers prior to a hearing to determine whether the value of their legal services is in excess of the sums previously paid to them (see Gamble v Gamble, 78 AD2d 673; Yaron v Yaron, 58 AD2d 752; Shatzkin v Shahmoon, 19 AD2d 658). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.