New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MARTINEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-015-270, Claim No. 103770, Motion No. M-65001


Synopsis


Movant's proof offered on application of claimant's attorneys to be relieved insufficient to obtain relief requested.

Case Information

UID:
2002-015-270
Claimant(s):
CESAR MARTINEZ and VICTORIA MARTINEZ
Claimant short name:
MARTINEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103770
Motion number(s):
M-65001
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:
Greene & Reid, LLPBy: James T. Snyder, Esquire
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Esquire
Assistant Attorney GeneralNo Appearance
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 26, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

By order to show cause signed by this Court on April 1, 2002 and made returnable on May 1, 2002 the claimants' attorneys of record, Greene & Reid, LLP (James T. Snyder, of counsel) moved for an order to be relieved as claimants' attorneys pursuant to CPLR § 321 (b). The claimants have not opposed the motion. Although a client may discharge an attorney without cause at any time, there must be a showing of good cause and reasonable notice before an attorney will be permitted to terminate the attorney/client relationship (see, Matter of Dunn, 205 NY 398, 403; Lake v M.P.C. Trucking, 279 AD2d 813; Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [22 NYCRR § 1200.15]). The court is satisfied from the affidavit of service submitted on the motion that claimants received reasonable notification of counsel's application to withdraw.

The affirmation of James T. Snyder submitted in support of the motion relates the following in relevant part:
5. After commencement of this action, information recently became known to counsel for Claimants that requires counsel to be legally and ethically recused from further representation of the Claimants.
No further factual allegations are set forth in the motion papers.

The determination of good cause lies within the Court's discretion (People v Salquerro, 107 Misc 2d 155). While an allegation asserting an ethical preclusion from further representation of a client may justify the granting of a motion to withdraw pursuant to CPLR § 321 (b) if it is adequately supported (LeMin v Central Suffolk Hosp., 169 AD2d 821), the movant herein has failed to set forth the facts underlying its allegation and as a result has not met its burden of establishing that good cause exists to permit withdrawal. Accordingly, the motion to be relieved is denied.


June 26, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Order to show cause dated April 1, 2002;
  2. Affirmation of James T. Snyder dated March 27, 2002, with exhibits.