The absence of a notice of cross motion by the outgoing attorney pursuant to CPLR 2215 is not fatal herein since defendant was fully apprised of the outgoing attorney's position respecting payment of his fee in the event defendant elected to discharge him and retain different counsel (see, Plateis v. Flax, 54 A.D.2d 813, 814). Inasmuch as the outgoing attorney was not discharged for cause, his fee was properly determined by the motion court on a quantum meruit basis (see, Teichner v. W J Holsteins, 64 N.Y.2d 977, 979). Given that it was undisputed that, at the time of his discharge, outgoing counsel had been uncompensated in the amount of $13,731 for services rendered, and there was no challenge respecting the reasonableness of that figure, the motion court properly fixed the outgoing attorney's fee and corresponding retaining lien in that amount (see, Yaron v. Yaron, 58 A.D.2d 752).
Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.