Wang v. Leo Chuliya, LTD
- Rochon
- 1:20-cv-10395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wang v. Leo Chuliya, Judge Rochon granted former counsel Ricardo R. Morel a $10,395.69 charging lien on plaintiffs’ proceeds.
Former counsel Ricardo R. Morel, plaintiffs Bin Wang and Yan Qiu Zhang, and proceeds from any ultimate recovery by the plaintiffs.
What happened
In Wang v. Leo Chuliya, former plaintiffs’ lawyer Ricardo R. Morel asked the court to place a $10,395.69 charging lien on proceeds from the case. Plaintiffs’ current lawyer did not oppose the request.
The court said New York law allows a lawyer who appeared for a party to claim a lien on that party’s case and on money recovered through a favorable result. The court found that the legal requirements were met and that the request was unopposed.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request and placed the lien on proceeds from any ultimate recovery by plaintiffs Bin Wang and Yan Qiu Zhang. She also directed the court clerk to close the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Leo Chuliya, LTD · No. 1:20-cv-10395
- Rochon
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Ricardo R. Morel, former counsel for plaintiffs Bin Wang and Yan Qiu Zhang, requested a charging lien of $10,395.69 under Section 475 of the New York Judiciary Law. A charging lien is a lawyer’s claim against money recovered in a client’s case. Plaintiffs’ current counsel advised the court that the request was unopposed.
Legal standard
The court explained that Section 475 governs attorneys’ charging liens in federal courts located in New York. The statute provides that a lawyer who appears for a party has a lien on the client’s claim and on the proceeds of a favorable verdict, settlement, judgment, or other final result. The court may determine and enforce that lien.
Ruling
The court found that the requirements of Section 475 had been met and that the request was unopposed. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon therefore granted the request and placed a $10,395.69 charging lien in favor of Ricardo R. Morel on the proceeds of any ultimate recovery by plaintiffs. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion pending at ECF No. 104.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.