`Intake
`At
`the State
`of
`Supreme
`Court
`of Nassau,
`and
`for
`the County
`Court
`at 100 Supreme
`located
`Dr., Mineola,
`June,2018
`on the
`
`York,
`
`day
`
`of
`
`the
`of
`Part
`IAS,
`of New York,
`held
`at
`the Courthouse
`
`in
`
`New
`
`P R E S E N T :
`
`HON:
`
`JEROME
`
`C. MURPHY,
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF THE STATE
`OF NASSAU
`COUNTY
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`YU YANG,
`TSUN
`CHIN
`QUEI
`YANG,
`KAUSAR
`EACH INDIVIDUALLY
`ZAMAN,
`IN AND ON BEHALF
`AS PARTNERS
`S.Y.Z.
`CO.,
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`Justice
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`Justice
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`605835/14
`
`QAMAR
`ZAMAN,
`and DERIVATIVELY
`OF THE
`PARTNERSHIP
`
`and
`
`TO SHOW
`ORDER
`CAUSE
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`SNEH PRABHA
`
`SHUKLA
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`X
`
`Defendant.
`
`Upon
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`Affirmation
`
`of
`
`Thomas
`
`Stanziale,
`
`Esq.,
`
`dated
`
`the
`
`14d'
`
`day
`
`of
`
`June,
`
`2018
`
`and
`
`the
`
`prior
`
`Order
`
`to Show
`
`Cause
`
`to
`
`be relieved
`
`from
`
`Counsel,
`
`the Order
`
`granting
`
`such
`
`relief
`
`the
`
`of
`
`the Decision
`
`of Hon:
`
`Jerome
`
`dated
`
`June
`
`and
`
`So Ordered
`
`minutes
`
`C. Murphy
`
`7,
`
`2018.
`
`LET
`
`the
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant,
`
`Receiver
`
`and
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`show
`
`cause
`
`at
`
`a
`
`Commercial,
`
`Part
`
`IAS
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Supreme
`
`Court
`
`of
`
`the
`
`State
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`County
`
`of Nassau,
`
`located
`
`at 100 Supreme
`
`Court
`
`Dr. Mineola,
`
`New York,
`
`on the
`
`day
`
`of
`
`June,
`
`2018
`
`at 9:30
`
`o'
`
`in the
`
`forenoon,
`
`or as soon
`
`thereafter
`
`as counsel
`
`can
`
`be heard,
`
`why
`
`the
`
`following
`
`relief
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be issued:
`
`Pinsuant
`
`to Judiciary
`
`Law $475
`
`and
`
`basis
`
`of quantum
`
`meruit.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Ordering
`
`the
`
`Receiver
`
`to
`
`issue
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`$41,750.00
`
`to THOMAS
`
`STANZIALE,
`
`ESQ,
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Law
`
`Office
`
`of
`
`Henry
`
`Stanziale,
`
`Esq.
`
`out
`
`of
`
`the
`
`$499,871.77
`
`to
`
`be
`
`disburse
`
`to
`
`defendant,
`
`Mrs.
`
`Sneh
`
`Shukla
`
`based
`
`on
`
`the
`
`attached
`
`hourly
`
`billing
`
`(See
`
`Exhibit
`
`"A")
`
`pursuant
`
`to the
`
`Judiciary
`
`Law §475
`
`and
`
`basis
`
`of quantum
`
`meruit.;
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`2.
`
`And
`
`for
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as this Court
`
`deems
`
`just
`
`Sufficient
`
`cause
`
`being
`
`alleged
`
`therefor,
`
`it
`
`is hereby
`
`ORDERED,
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`and/or
`
`their
`
`attorneys
`
`shall
`
`serve
`
`any
`
`affidavits
`
`or other
`
`papers
`
`in opposition
`
`to this motion
`
`upon
`
`Thomas
`
`Stanziale,
`
`Esq.
`
`attorney
`
`for Plaintiffs,
`
`on or
`
`before
`
`System
`
`by
`
`electronic
`
`filing
`
`on the New York
`
`State
`
`Courts
`
`Electronic
`
`filing
`
`Plaintiffs'
`
`("NYSCEF")
`
`as designated
`
`by
`
`counsel
`
`for
`
`such
`
`purpose
`
`in the Notice
`
`of
`
`Commencement
`
`of Action
`
`Subject
`
`to Mandatory
`
`Electronic
`
`Filing
`
`pursuant
`
`to Section
`
`202.5bb
`
`of
`
`the Uniform
`
`Rules
`
`for
`
`the Trial
`
`Courts,
`
`or,
`
`if an exemption
`
`from
`
`electronic
`
`filing
`
`is claimed,
`
`by mail,
`
`personal
`
`delivery
`
`or delivery
`
`service
`
`to 585
`
`Stewart
`
`Avenue,
`
`Suite
`
`546 Garden
`
`City, NY
`
`11530.
`
`AND IT IS FURTHER
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`service
`
`of a copy
`
`of
`
`this Order
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`defendant,
`
`Sneh
`
`Shukla
`
`at 293 Hempstead
`
`Ave. West
`
`Hempstead,
`
`NY 11552,
`
`Stuart
`
`Serota,
`
`Esq.Kaufman
`
`& Serota
`
`119 North
`
`Park
`
`Avenue,
`
`Ste 308,
`
`Rockville
`
`Centre,
`
`NY 11570
`
`and
`
`Receiver,
`
`Hon.
`
`Edward
`
`McCabe
`
`(Ret)
`
`at 333 Earle
`
`Ovington
`
`11553.
`
`By
`
`certified
`
`mail,
`
`return
`
`receipt
`
`requested
`
`before
`
`good
`
`and
`
`sufficient
`
`service.
`
`Boulevard,
`
`the _ day
`
`Ste.
`
`601 Uniondale,
`
`NY
`
`of
`
`June,
`
`2018,
`
`be deemed
`
`ENTER:
`
`J. S. C.
`
`
`
`OF THE STATE
`
`COURT
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`OF NASSAU
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`YU YANG,
`CHIN
`TSUN
`QUEI
`YANG,
`KAUSAR
`EACH INDIVIDUALLY
`ZAMAN,
`IN AND ON BEHALF
`AS PARTNERS
`S.Y.Z.
`CO.,
`
`ASSOCIATES,
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`QAMAR
`ZAMAN,
`and DERIVATIVELY
`OF THE
`PARTNERSHIP
`
`and
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`605835/14
`
`SNEH
`
`PRABHA
`
`SHUKLA
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AFFIRMATION
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`—
`
`THOMAS
`
`STANZIALE,
`
`I
`
`ESQ.,
`
`an attorney
`
`admitted
`
`to practice
`
`in the State
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`affirms
`
`that
`
`the
`
`following
`
`statements
`
`are true
`
`under
`
`the
`
`penalties
`
`of perjury:
`
`That
`
`I was
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`for
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`Sneh
`
`Shukla
`
`and
`
`as
`
`such
`
`I am fully
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`all
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`proceedings
`
`had
`
`herein.
`
`1.
`
`This
`
`Affirmation
`
`is made
`
`in Support
`
`for
`
`the
`
`application
`
`for
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`attorneys
`
`charging
`
`lien
`
`due
`
`and
`
`owing
`
`in
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`$41,750.00
`
`by
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`and
`
`of
`
`quantum
`
`meruit.
`
`See
`
`Judiciary
`
`Law
`
`§475
`
`basis
`
`billing
`
`invoice
`
`attached
`
`hereto
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"A".
`
`2.
`
`This
`
`application
`
`requests
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`Order
`
`the Receiver
`
`to
`
`issue
`
`payment
`
`of
`
`$41,750.00
`
`to THOMAS
`
`STANZIALE,
`
`ESQ,
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Law
`
`Office
`
`of
`
`Henry
`
`Stanziale,
`
`Esq.
`
`from
`
`the
`
`$499,871.77
`
`to
`
`be
`
`disburse
`
`to
`
`defendant,
`
`Mrs.
`
`Sneh
`
`Shukla
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`attached
`
`hourly
`
`billing
`
`(See Exhibit
`
`"A")
`
`and
`
`charging
`
`lien
`
`pursuant
`
`to Judiciary
`
`Law 475
`
`and
`
`on the
`
`basis
`
`of quantum
`
`meruit.
`
`3.
`
`As
`
`the
`
`fonner
`
`attorney
`
`of
`
`record
`
`for
`
`the
`
`defendant,
`
`the
`
`law
`
`firm
`
`is
`
`entitled
`
`to
`
`I
`
`maintain'a
`
`charging
`
`lien
`
`attached
`
`to
`
`any
`
`verdict,
`
`report.
`
`determination,
`
`decision,
`
`
`
`judgment,
`
`or
`
`final
`
`order
`
`rendered
`
`in
`
`defendant's
`
`favor,
`
`including
`
`any
`
`settlement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`action,
`
`if
`
`such
`
`a favorable
`
`result
`
`is ultimately
`
`achieved
`
`by Defendant.
`
`As
`
`held
`
`by
`
`the
`
`court
`
`in Ruta
`
`& Soulios
`
`LLP
`
`v. Litman
`
`& Litman,
`
`PC,
`
`9 Misc
`
`3d
`
`1123(A)
`
`[Sup
`
`Ct 2005]
`
`affd,
`
`27 AD3d
`
`236
`
`[1 Dept
`
`2006]:
`
`4.
`
`"A
`
`charging
`
`lien
`
`is a security
`
`interest
`
`in the
`
`favorable
`
`result
`
`of
`
`litigation
`
`giving
`
`in
`
`the
`
`client's
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action
`
`and
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`equitable
`
`ownership
`
`interest
`
`ensuring
`
`that
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`can
`
`collect
`
`his
`
`fee
`
`from
`
`the
`
`fund
`
`he has
`
`created
`
`for
`
`that
`
`purpose
`
`on
`
`behalf
`
`of
`
`the
`
`client."
`
`Chadbourne
`
`& Parke,
`
`LLP
`
`v. AB
`
`Recur
`
`Finans,
`
`18 AD3d
`
`222,
`
`223
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.2005)
`
`citing
`
`LMWT
`
`Realty
`
`Corp.
`
`v. Davis
`
`Agency,
`
`85
`
`N.Y.2d
`
`462,
`
`—
`467-468
`
`(1995);
`
`Butler,
`
`Fitzgerald
`
`&
`
`Potter
`
`v.
`
`Gelmin,
`
`235
`
`A.D.2d
`
`218
`
`(1st Dept.1997).
`
`"
`
`[E.D.N.Y.
`
`5.
`
`In
`
`a recent
`
`decision,
`
`Stair
`
`v. Calhoun,
`
`722
`
`F.Supp.
`
`258
`
`2010],
`
`the
`
`court
`
`analyzed
`
`the motion
`
`of
`
`a law
`
`firm
`
`to withdraw
`
`as counsel
`
`for
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`and
`
`for
`
`both
`
`charging
`
`and
`
`retaining
`
`liens,
`
`holding:
`
`"Under
`
`New York
`
`law,
`
`an attorney
`
`who
`
`is discharged
`
`is statutorily
`
`entitled
`
`to a
`
`charging
`
`lien
`
`on any monetary
`
`recoveries
`
`obtained
`
`the
`
`former
`
`client
`
`in the
`
`by
`
`proceedings
`
`in which
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`had
`
`rendered
`
`legal
`
`services.
`
`See N.Y.
`
`Judiciary
`
`Law Section
`
`475.
`
`The
`
`Second
`
`Circuit
`
`in Butler,
`
`Fitzgerald
`
`& Potter
`
`v. Sequa
`
`Corp.',
`
`250
`
`F.3d
`
`171,
`
`177
`
`(2d Cir.2001)
`
`explained
`
`the
`
`rationale
`
`behind
`
`the
`
`charging
`
`lien: New York's
`
`statutory
`
`charging
`
`lien,
`
`see N.Y.
`
`Judiciary
`
`Law Section
`
`475
`
`(McI(inney
`
`1983),
`
`is a device
`
`to protect
`
`counsel
`
`against
`
`"the
`
`knavery
`
`of his
`
`client,"
`
`whereby
`
`through
`
`his
`
`effort,
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`acquires
`
`an interest
`
`in the
`
`client's
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`action.
`
`In re City
`
`of New York,
`
`5 N.Y.2d
`
`300,
`
`307,
`
`184 N.Y.S.2d
`
`585,
`
`157 N.E.2d
`
`587
`
`
`
`(1959).
`
`The
`
`lien
`
`is predicated
`
`on the
`
`idea
`
`that
`
`the
`
`attorney
`
`has
`
`by his
`
`skill
`
`and
`
`effort
`
`obtained
`
`the judgment,
`
`and
`
`hence
`
`"should
`
`have
`
`a lien
`
`thereon
`
`for
`
`his
`
`compensation,
`
`in analogy
`
`to the
`
`lien
`
`which
`
`a mechanic
`
`has upon
`
`any
`
`article
`
`which
`
`he
`
`manufactures."
`
`Williams
`
`v.
`
`Ingersoll,
`
`89 N.Y.
`
`508,
`
`517
`
`(1882).
`
`Section
`
`475
`
`of
`
`the New York
`
`Judiciary
`
`Law provides:
`
`"Froni
`lien
`
`the
`upon
`
`commencement
`his
`client's
`
`cause
`
`...
`claim
`
`who
`
`a
`
`report,
`verdict,
`or her
`his
`client's
`and
`the
`lien
`cannot
`final
`order
`determine
`
`judgment,
`
`attorney
`
`may
`
`determination,
`and
`favor,
`be affected
`by any
`or determination.
`and
`enforce
`
`of an action
`of action,
`decision,
`proceeds
`the
`
`the
`attorney
`or counterclaim,
`award,
`settlement,
`thereof
`in whatever
`between
`settlement
`The
`upon
`court
`lien".
`
`the
`
`appears
`which
`judgment
`hands
`parties
`the
`petition
`
`has
`for
`a party
`attaches
`to a
`or
`final
`order
`
`in
`
`they may
`before
`the
`
`come;
`or after
`or
`client
`
`of
`
`the
`
`6.
`
`Under
`
`New York
`
`law,
`
`a client
`
`may
`
`discharge
`
`an attorney
`
`at any
`
`time,
`
`with
`
`or without
`
`cause
`
`(Matter
`
`of Montgomery,
`
`272 N.Y.
`
`323,
`
`326,
`
`6 N.E.2d
`
`40; Reubenbaum
`
`v. B. & H
`
`Express,
`
`6 A.D.2d
`
`47,
`
`48,
`
`174 N.Y.S.2d
`
`287
`
`[Breitel,
`
`J.]). When
`
`a client
`
`discharges
`
`an
`
`without
`
`the
`
`is entitled
`
`to recover
`
`compensation
`
`from
`
`the
`
`client
`
`attorney
`
`cause,
`
`attorney
`
`measured
`
`by
`
`the
`
`fair
`
`and
`
`reasonable
`
`value
`
`of
`
`the
`
`services
`
`rendered
`
`whether
`
`that
`
`be more
`
`or
`
`less
`
`than
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`provided
`
`in the
`
`contract
`
`or
`
`retainer
`
`agreement
`
`(Matter
`
`of
`
`Montgoniery,
`
`supra,
`
`272 N.Y.
`
`at 326-327,
`
`6 N.E.2d
`
`40).
`
`As
`
`between
`
`them,
`
`either
`
`can
`
`require
`
`that
`
`the
`
`compensation
`
`be a fixed
`
`dollar
`
`amount
`
`determined
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`on the
`
`of quantum
`
`(Reubenbaum
`
`discharge
`
`basis
`
`meruit
`
`v. B. & H. Express,
`
`supra,
`
`6
`
`A.D.2d
`
`at 48,
`
`174 N.Y.S.2d
`
`287)
`
`or,
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`they may
`
`agree
`
`that
`
`the
`
`attorney,
`
`in lieu
`
`of a presently
`
`fixed
`
`dollar
`
`amount,
`
`will
`
`receive
`
`a contingent
`
`percentage
`
`fee
`
`determined
`
`either
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`substitution
`
`or at
`
`the
`
`conclusion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`case
`
`(id.).
`
`See,
`
`Lai
`
`Lr'ng
`
`Ching
`
`v.
`
`Motjansky
`
`Leasing
`
`Co.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`73 NY2d
`
`454,
`
`457-58
`
`[1989].
`
`
`
`7.
`
`As
`
`held
`
`by
`
`the Second
`
`Department
`
`in Mello
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`303 AD2d
`
`564
`
`[2 Dept.
`
`2003],
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`election
`
`by
`
`the
`
`law firm,
`
`the
`
`charging
`
`lien
`
`ought
`
`to be
`
`acknowledged
`
`and
`
`fixed
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`a contingent
`
`percentage
`
`to be determined
`
`at
`
`the
`
`conclusion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`action.
`
`8.
`
`The motion
`
`brought
`
`by
`
`the
`
`law firm
`
`is appropriately
`
`brought
`
`before
`
`the
`
`court
`
`in the
`
`action,
`
`as opposed
`
`commenced
`
`as a separate,
`
`plenary
`
`action.
`
`underlying
`
`to being
`
`See, Miller
`
`v. Kassatly,
`
`216 AD2d
`
`260
`
`[1 Dept.
`
`1995]
`
`("
`
`Judiciary
`
`Law Section
`
`475
`
`establishes
`
`a statutory
`
`attorneys'
`
`lien,
`
`[and]
`
`permits
`
`enforcement
`
`of
`
`the
`
`lien
`
`either
`
`way
`
`of motion
`
`in the main
`
`action
`
`or by plenary
`
`action.
`
`"); Wasserman
`
`v. Wasserman,
`
`AD3d
`
`932
`
`[2 Dept.
`
`2014]
`
`(" An attorney
`
`may
`
`enforce
`
`a charging
`
`lien
`
`simply
`
`by making
`
`by
`
`119
`
`a petition
`
`to the
`
`court
`
`in the
`
`proceeding
`
`where
`
`he or she
`
`appeared,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`having
`
`to
`
`bring
`
`a separate
`
`plenary
`
`action.")
`
`9.
`
`That
`
`after
`
`two
`
`(2)
`
`years
`
`working
`
`on
`
`the
`
`case
`
`from
`
`inception
`
`until
`
`trial
`
`with
`
`countless
`
`motions
`
`and
`
`appeals
`
`there
`
`was
`
`a breakdown
`
`of
`
`communication
`
`between
`
`myself
`
`and Ms.
`
`Shukla.
`
`See
`
`attached
`
`Affirmation
`
`in Support
`
`for
`
`Motion
`
`to
`
`be
`
`relieved
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"B".
`
`10.
`
`Therefore,
`
`I moved
`
`to
`
`be
`
`relieved
`
`which
`
`relief
`
`was
`
`granted
`
`on November
`
`31,
`
`2016.
`
`Affirmation
`
`I did
`
`request
`
`a charging
`
`lien
`
`in
`
`that motion.
`
`See Attached
`
`in
`
`Support
`
`para.
`
`23 and Order
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"B".
`
`11.
`
`That
`
`Mrs.
`
`Shukla
`
`proceeded
`
`Pro
`
`Se. The
`
`evidence
`
`for
`
`trial
`
`was
`
`provided
`
`by my
`
`work
`
`through
`
`discovery
`
`and my
`
`success
`
`on prior
`
`motions.
`
`12.
`
`Based
`
`on
`
`the
`
`So-Ordered
`
`decision
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court,
`
`Mrs.
`
`Shukla
`
`will
`
`be
`
`paid
`
`$499,871.77
`
`from
`
`the
`
`Receiver's
`
`Account..
`
`See
`
`Attached
`
`So-Ordered
`
`
`
`Decision
`
`as Exhibit
`
`"C".
`
`13.
`
`I
`
`respectfully
`
`request
`
`that
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`documentation
`
`and
`
`in the
`
`interest
`
`of
`
`justice
`
`that my
`
`attorney
`
`fees
`
`be
`
`paid
`
`from
`
`these
`
`proceeds
`
`before
`
`being
`
`disburse
`
`to
`
`defendant,
`
`Mrs.
`
`Shulkla.
`
`14.
`
`No previous
`
`application
`
`has
`
`been made
`
`for
`
`the
`
`relief
`
`requested
`
`herein.
`
`Wherefore,
`
`I
`
`respectfully
`
`request
`
`an Order
`
`to
`
`have
`
`the Receiver
`
`pay THOMAS
`
`STANZIALE,
`
`ESQ.
`
`$41,750.00
`
`of
`
`the Law Office
`
`of Henry
`
`Stanziale,
`
`Esq.
`
`from
`
`the
`
`proceeds
`
`of
`
`$499,871.77
`
`being
`
`paid
`
`to Defendant,
`
`Mrs.
`
`Shukla
`
`as
`
`per
`
`So
`
`Ordered
`
`Decision
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Honorable
`
`Court
`
`and
`
`for
`
`such
`
`other
`
`and
`
`further
`
`relief
`
`as
`
`this Court
`
`deems
`
`just
`
`and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated,
`June
`
`Garden
`8, 2018
`
`City,
`
`New York
`
`TH
`
`S
`
`NZIALE,
`
`ESQ
`
`