Renaissance Contrs. & Bldrs. Corp. v Academy Charter Sch. Middle Sch., 2024 NY Slip Op 02828 [227 AD3d 1015]

May 22, 2024

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

Renaissance Contractors and Builders Corp., Appellant,

v

Academy Charter School Middle School et al., Defendants. Harvey Sorid, Nonparty Respondent.

Jerald S. Carter, Garden City, NY, for appellant.

Harvey Sorid, P.C., Uniondale, NY, nonparty respondent pro se.

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Steven M. Jaeger, J.), dated August 26, 2021. The order, made after a hearing, in effect, granted the motion of nonparty Harvey Sorid to fix a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 to the extent of awarding him counsel fees in the sum of $50,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Nonparty Harvey Sorid was the former counsel for Renaissance Contractors and Builders Corp. (hereinafter Renaissance) in two actions pursuant to a retainer agreement which provided, inter alia, that Sorid would receive 25% of all funds received by suit, settlement or otherwise. The first action was commenced by Academy Charter School Middle School (hereinafter Academy) to discharge a mechanic’s lien filed by Renaissance. The second action was an action Renaissance commenced, among other things, to foreclose the mechanic’s lien. The Supreme Court ordered a joint trial of the actions. Prior to the commencement of trial, Sorid was relieved as counsel for Renaissance based on Sorid’s personal health issues and a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. Sorid and new counsel, William Nolan, executed a consent to change attorney form which was signed by, among others, a representative for Renaissance. The actions were settled by the parties on the fifth day of trial.

Sorid moved to fix a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475. After a hearing, the Supreme Court awarded Sorid counsel fees in the sum of $50,000. Renaissance appeals.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, an attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his or her client’s cause of action. An attorney who terminates his or her representation for just cause continues to be entitled to enforce the lien ( see Klein v Eubank , 87 NY2d 459, 462 [1996]; Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. , 196 AD3d 527 , 528-529 [2021]). Here, contrary to Renaissance’s contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that Sorid’s withdrawal due to his health and a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship was for just cause ( see Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. , 196 AD3d at 529).

An award of a reasonable attorney’s fee is within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( see Robinson & Yablon, P.C. v Sacco & Fillas, LLP , 192 AD3d 1154 , 1154 [2021]; Wodecki v [*2] Vinogradov , 125 AD3d 645 , 646 [2015]). “In fixing an award of legal fees in quantum meruit, a court should consider evidence of the time and skill required in the case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the client’s benefit derived from the services, and the fee usually charged by attorneys for similar service” ( SBC 2010-1, LLC v Smits Structure Corp. , 167 AD3d 795 , 795 [2018]; see Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. , 196 AD3d at 529). “Quantum meruit compensation is not limited to a calculation based on the number of hours worked multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate” ( Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. , 196 AD3d at 529 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see SBC 2010-1, LLC v Smits Structure Corp. , 167 AD3d 795 , 795-796 [2018]). “The calculation of an award of legal fees as a portion of a contingent fee and based on an hourly rate are both properly fixed as quantum meruit determinations” ( Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. , 196 AD3d at 529 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see SBC 2010-1, LLC v Smits Structure Corp. , 167 AD3d at 796). “In either event, an award in quantum meruit should be made after weighing all the relevant factors” ( SBC 2010-1, LLC v Smits Structure Corp. , 167 AD3d at 796; see DeGregorio v Bender , 52 AD3d 645 , 646 [2008]).

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that, based on the time spent, the skill required, the complexity of the matter, the benefit accruing to Renaissance from the work performed, the contingent fee retainer agreement, and the customary fee charged, Sorid was entitled to $50,000 of the $175,000 contingency fee ( see Tucker v Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. , 196 AD3d at 529; SBC 2010-1, LLC v Smits Structure Corp. , 167 AD3d at 796).

Sorid’s contention that the Supreme Court should have awarded him counsel fees in the sum of $80,000 is not properly before this Court, as Sorid’s cross-appeal was deemed dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.10 (a). LaSalle, P.J., Connolly, Genovesi and Landicino, JJ., concur..