LANSKY v. EASOW

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and those branches of the appellant's motion which were for a retaining lien in the amount of $2,084.75 and a charging lien are granted.

The plaintiff submitted no proof that the appellant was discharged for cause. Thus, the appellant is entitled to reimbursement for his disbursements of $2,084.75 advanced in prosecuting the plaintiff's personal injury action (see Security Credit Sys. v. Perfetto, 242 A.D.2d 871).

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, an attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client's cause of action. Where an attorney's representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien. However, where an attorney withdraws without good cause, his or her lien is automatically forfeited (see Klein v. Eubank, 87 N.Y.2d 459; Hae Sook Moon v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 292). The Supreme Court's conclusion that the appellant withdrew without sufficient cause is not supported by the record. Thus, the appellant maintained his right to enforce his statutory lien on the plaintiff's cause of action.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.