New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROSELL v. New York, #2000-010-019, Claim No. 95900, Motion No. M-60963


Synopsis


Motion to be relieved as counsel.

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-019
Claimant(s):
JOSE ROSELL
Claimant short name:
ROSELL
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
95900
Motion number(s):
M-60963
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
JAEGER & BLOCKBy: Steven M. Jaeger
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Michael Rosas, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 24, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the unopposed motion of claimant's attorney, the law firm of Jaeger and Block, to be relieved as counsel for claimant regarding Claim No. 95900:
Order to Show Cause, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation

The law firm asserts that the attorney handling this claim has accepted a full-time position as the Law Clerk to a Judge of the County Court, Nassau County, effective December 31, 1999 and, under the rules of the New York State Courts, will no longer be permitted to engage in the private practice of law and must wind down his practice and dissolve his law partnership.

The Code of Professional Responsibility DR2-110(c)(1)(d) provides that a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if the client's conduct "renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively." On a motion to withdraw as counsel, the movant must demonstrate reasonable notice to the client and good and sufficient cause for the withdrawal (see, J.M. Heinike Assocs. v. Liberty Natl. Bank, 142 AD2d 929; Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v State Univ. Constr. Fund, 79 AD2d 782).

On the papers before this Court, it appears that discovery is nearly complete and the mere fact that the attorney who was handling the case is leaving the firm does not demonstrate good and sufficient cause, at this late date, for withdrawal by the firm. Presumably, the firm has another qualified attorney who can continue with the prosecution of this claim.[1]

Thus, the firm's application is DENIED (see, George v George, 217 AD2d 913).

May 24, 2000
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1] It is noted that the law firm of Jaeger and Block has been given numerous adjournments to permit them to resolve this motion by either finding substitute counsel to take over the claim or to submit further documentation on the motion. As of the final adjournment on May 17, 2000, the firm failed to submit any further documentation and did not return the Court's two telephone calls made by the Judge's law clerk.