Case ID: nj_231/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

172 A.3d 548
    JOHN GIOVANNI GRANATA, PLAINTIFF, v. EDWARD F. BRODERICK, JR., ESQ., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; BRODERICK, NEWMARK & GRATHER, DEFENDANTS. ROTENBERG, MERIL, SOLOMON, BERTIGER & GUTILLA, P.C.; AND ELLIOT H. GOURVITZ, ESQ., INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS. JOHN GIOVANNI GRANATA, PLAINTIFF, v. EDWARD F. BRODERICK, JR., ESQ., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; BRODERICK, NEWMARK & GRATHER, DEFENDANTS. OKS REALTY, INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, AND ROTENBERG, MERIL, SOLOMON, BERTIGER & GUTILLA, P.C.; AND ELLIOT H. GOURVITZ, ESQ., INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS.
    A-31 September Term 2016
    A-32 September Term 2016
    078207
    Argued October 24, 2017
    Decided November 14, 2017
    Robert L. Podvey argued the cause for appellant Rotenberg, Meril, Solomon, Bertiger & Gutilla, P.C. (Connell Foley, attorneys; Robert L. Podvey, of counsel and on the brief).
    Ari H. Gourvitz argued the cause for appellant Elliot H. Gour-vitz, Esq. (Gourvitz & Gourvitz, attorneys; Ari. H. Gourvitz, on the briefs).
    Robyne D. LaGrotta argued the cause for respondent OKS Realty (LaGrotta Law, attorneys; Robyne D. LaGrotta, of counsel and on the briefs).
   PER CURIAM

The Court granted certification to review petitioners’ challenges to the Superior Court, Appellate Division’s determinations regarding the distribution priorities of the attorney’s fee award, more specifically the rulings that an attorney’s pledge of anticipated attorney’s fees can be considered an account receivable and secured under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that the lender here complied with the requirements of the UCC to perfect its security interest by filing a financing statement covering the collateral of the anticipated attorney’s fees. Having considered the parties’ arguments presented in their briefs and at oral argument, the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in those parts of Judge Guadagno’s opinion addressing the distribution priorities of the attorney’s fee award, reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449, 143 A.3d 309 (App. Div. 2016).

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in this opinion.