N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Judiciary / ARTICLE Attorneys and Counsellors
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 475 (2026)

Attorney's lien in action, special or other proceeding

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 475. Attorney's lien in action, special or other proceeding. From
the commencement of an action, special or other proceeding in any court
or before any state, municipal or federal department, except a
department of labor, or the service of an answer containing a
counterclaim, or the initiation of any means of alternative dispute
resolution including, but not limited to, mediation or arbitration, or
the provision of services in a settlement negotiation at any stage of
the dispute, the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his or
her client's cause of action, claim or counterclaim, which attaches to a
verdict, report, determination, decision, award, settlement, judgment or
final order in his or her client's favor, and the proceeds thereof in
whatever hands they may come; and the lien cannot be affected by any
settlement between the parties before or after judgment, final order or
determination. The court upon the petition of the client or attorney may
determine and enforce the lien.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 347 cases (71 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek & Shoot v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff’s complaint, while not artful, sufficiently sets forth a claim pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 against the City of New York.”
Maher v. Quality Bus Serv., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 7931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 7× “), dated April 30, 2014, as, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion to relieve it as counsel for the plaintiff, in effect, denied its application to establish an attorney’s retaining lien and charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475, and (2) so much of an order of the same…”
Stair v. Calhoun, 722 F. Supp. 2d 258 (E.D.N.Y 2010). · cites it 5× “Entitlement to a Charging Lien Under New York law, an attorney who is discharged is statutorily entitled to a charging lien on any monetary recoveries obtained by the former client in the proceedings in which the attorney had rendered legal services.”
Cellino & Barnes, P.C. v. Law Off. of Christopher J. Cassar, 140 A.D.3d 1732 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 6× “Following substitution of counsel, plaintiff sent a letter to defendants asserting a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 to secure its interest in attorney’s fees.”
Klein v. Eubank, 663 N.E.2d 599 (NY 1996). · cites it 6× “In this proceeding brought by an attorney to enforce a statutory charging lien, the issues are whether a lawyer who was once but is no longer the attorney of record may invoke the Judiciary Law § 475 lien and whether the protection of that statute is forfeited when the attorney…”
Cataldo v. Budget Rent A Car Corp., 226 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 8× “), dated January 4,1995, which, after a hearing, héld, inter alia, that it was not entitled to a lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 for services rendered in the representation of Christina Cataldo, Shiyamala Thirunayagam, and Perinpanagam Thirunayagam.”
Young Su Hwangbo v. Nastro, 2017 NY Slip Op 6397 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 3× “te an order of the same court entered November 13, 2014, denying its application to extend the time to provide the court with proof of the work it performed on behalf of the plaintiffs Jung Mi Gimm and Erin Gimm beyond the deadline set forth in a prior order of the same court…”
Indosuez v. Sopwith Holdings Corp., 772 N.E.2d 1112 (NY 2002). · cites it 4× “Instead, our focus is on the narrow issue of whether an attorney’s charging lien acquired by defendants’ attorneys on their successful cause of action is entitled to priority over plaintiffs right to set off its larger judgment against defendants.”
Wasserman v. Wasserman, 119 A.D.3d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 7× “), dated December 11, 2013, which denied its motion, in effect, to establish a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 in the sum of $47,236.”
Messina v. Wedderburn, 2023 NY Slip Op 06360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). · cites it 6× “Sparrow to establish a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 to the extent of awarding him the principal sum of $20,833.”
Ray Legal Consulting Grp. v. Gray, 37 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 3× “”); see also N.Y. Jud. Law § 475 (specifying that “[t]he Court upon the petition of the client or attorney may determine and enforce a lien.”
Tirado-Sottosanyti v. Crowley, 2023 NY Slip Op 05163 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). · cites it 4× “The order, in effect, granted the motion of nonparty Chelli & Bush for an allocation of attorneys' fees, denied that branch of the cross-motion of nonparty Krentsel & Guzman, LLP, which was, in effect, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475 to quash an attorney charging lien in favor…”
Show all 347 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.