Legal Opinion
Chorosh v. Woodbury
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 21, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLevy, J.
In an action by respondent corporation as plaintiff against the Andrew Jergens Company, a foreign corporation, it recovered by settlement a substantial sum payable partly in cash and partly in future installments. The petitioner, an attorney at law, who represents the respondent in that action, now seeks to foreclose a charging hen against the fund pursuant to section 475 of the Judiciary Law.
The action which resulted in the settlement was instituted in this court, but was removed at the instance of the defendant to the United States District Court, and the petitioner did not become…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. PettusSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Goodrich v. . McDonaldNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Oishei v. Pennsylvania RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- Rochfort v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- McKennell v. PayneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Brooks v. Mandel-Witte Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- In re the Estate of LevineNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
- In re the Estate of SternNew York Surrogate's Court · 1957
- Mitsui & Co. v. El Dorado Oil WorksDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1941
- Brooks v. Mandel-Witte Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932