Attorney 1 started a trip and fall case against City and Contractor A.  After two years he was substituted out, and Attorney 2 started a new action against Contractor B.  The two actions were consolidated and eventually Contractor A won the case.  Contractor B paid $ 100,000 and the City paid $ 50,000.

Is Attorney 1 entitled to fees?  Is Attorney 2 entitled to Fees? 

"The motion, by order to show cause, of plaintiffs’ attorney, Theodore Oshman, Esq., of Oshman & Mirisola, LLP (hereinafter "movants") [Attorney 2] for an order restoring this matter to the active calendar, allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to deposit all proceeds in its escrow account to allow for the distribution of funds to the plaintiffs and setting this matter down for a hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees, is granted.

The cross-motion by plaintiffs’ former attorney, Barry S. Gedan, Esq., {Attorney 1]  for an order disqualifying plaintiffs’ current attorneys from receiving any attorneys’ fee in this action upon grounds of misconduct by them, requiring the plaintiffs’ current attorneys to refund to the plaintiffs their entire claimed contingent attorneys’ fee plus disbursements, declaring that the entire portion of the settlement proceeds, in the amount of $50,000, be paid by defendant, The City of New York (hereinafter "City"), Barry S. Gedan, Esq., or in the alternative, requiring that the City deposit the $50,000 settlement in this action in an interest bearing account at Mr. Gedan’s bank, requiring the movant to provide a detailed list of the legal services it provided on behalf of the plaintiffs and requiring that the movant provide Mr. Gedan with a copy of the file in this case, is denied in its entirety.
Mr. Gedan is entitled to recover in quantum meruit, " . . . the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered . . . " Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 454 (1989); Judiciary Law §475. However, Mr. Gedan is entitled to recover for services rendered to the plaintiffs in the initial action involving the City only. In Cataldo v. Budget Rent A Car Corp., 226 A.D.2d 574 (2nd Dept. 1996), the court stated, " . . . before an attorney can be granted a lien pursuant to Judiciary Law §475 he or she must have appeared for the client by ‘participating in a legal proceeding on the client’s behalf or by having his [or her] name affixed to the pleadings, motions, records, briefs, or other papers submitted in the matter’" (citations omitted). Mr. Gedan did not represent the plaintiffs in the action against Columbus and he has failed to demonstrate that any of the work he performed resulted in the lawsuit against Columbus. He has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any fees from the settlement in the action involving Columbus as he did not commence the action against Columbus and had no involvement in that action whatsoever.

Accordingly, Mr. Gedan is only entitled to recover for services rendered in the initial action involving the City. Movants are permitted to deposit the proceeds of the settlement involving the City in its escrow account pending a determination of the fees Mr. Gedan is entitled to receive. Moreover, movant is permitted to distribute the plaintiffs’ share of the funds. Plaintiff, Melia Rothfeder is now more than eighty-four (84) years of age and is entitled to her share of the funds without having to wait for a determination in the fee dispute involving her present and former attorneys. "