NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4725-15T3
300 BROADWAY HEALTHCARE CENTER,
LLC, d/b/a NEW VISTA NURSING
AND REHABILITATION CENTER, and
GEORGE WEINBERGER, LEON
GOLDENBERGER and HADASSAH
SCHWARTZ (Each Individually
and Derivately on Behalf of
300 Broadway Healthcare,
Center, LLC),
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
HAPPY DAYS ADULT HEALTHCARE,
LLC, BRIAN KLEIMAN, STEVEN
KLEIMAN, RIVKA CHAYA KLEIMAN,
RIVKA BASYA KLEIMAN, HD
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
and NEW HORIZONS BEHAVORIAL
HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC,
Defendants.
________________________________
LASSER HOCHMAN, LLC,
Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted October 3, 2017 – Decided October 24, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Gilson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County,
Docket No. C-000025-05.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
LLP, attorneys for appellant (Thomas F. Quinn
and Joanna Piorek, of counsel and on the
briefs; Michael R. McAndrew, on the briefs).
Ferrara Law Group, PC, attorneys for
respondent 300 Broadway Healthcare Center, LLC
(Ralph P. Ferrara and Morgan J. Zucker, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
This appeal concerns a dispute over the obligation of a
corporation's former law firm to turn over the former client's
files to the client's new counsel, and the former firm's right to
charge the client for the time to collect the files and the cost
of copying the files. Appellant, Lasser Hochman, LLC (the law
firm), which formerly provided legal representation to 300
Broadway Healthcare d/b/a New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation
(300 Broadway or the client), appeals from a May 27, 2016 order,
directing the law firm to turn over certain files to the client's
new counsel without charging for any costs. The files related to
legal matters in which the law firm currently or previously
represented 300 Broadway.
While the dispute is the last chapter in a tortuous ten-year
shareholder litigation, the issues on this appeal can be resolved
simply. The client, 300 Broadway, advises us in its brief that
2 A-4725-15T3
the law firm has now turned over all of the files that were the
subject of the May 27, 2016 order. Accordingly, all issues
concerning the law firm's obligation to turn over the files to the
client's new counsel are moot. See Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87,
104 (2015). After reading the transcript of the oral argument
before the trial court, we also conclude that the law firm waived
its jurisdictional and procedural objections to the client's
turnover application.
We are constrained to remand the issue of the costs related
to the turnover of the files to the trial court, because the trial
court did not adequately address the issue. The trial court
reasoned that declining to release the files without payment
constituted the assertion of a common law retaining lien, a
practice now prohibited by RPC 1.16(d). The firm did not assert
a retaining lien. However, even if the firm was required to turn
over the files without advance payment, that does not answer the
question whether the firm was entitled to the costs of collecting
and copying the files. The trial court did not address any
available precedent on that issue. See Frenkel v. Frenkel, 252
N.J. Super. 214, 220-21 (App. Div. 1991); Opinion 554 of the Sup.
Ct. Comm. on Attorney Ethics, 115 N.J.L.J. 565 (1985). Lastly,
the subject of the costs for turning over files may have been
addressed in the retainer agreement between the law firm and the
3 A-4725-15T3
client. We remand the costs issue to the trial court for
reconsideration.
Dismissed as moot in part, remanded in part. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
4 A-4725-15T3