New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VOGELSTEIN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY TECHNICAL COLLEGE and CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-013, Claim No. 104698, Motion No. M-65866


Synopsis


Claimant's counsel was permitted to withdraw.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-013
Claimant(s):
MARIE VOGELSTEIN
Claimant short name:
VOGELSTEIN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY TECHNICAL COLLEGE and CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104698
Motion number(s):
M-65866
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Litman & Litman, P.C.By: Jeffrey E. Litman, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Janet L. Polstein, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 18, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is the motion of Litman & Litman, P.C. for an order permitting it to withdraw as counsel for claimant Marie Vogelstein. The underlying claim arises "from an accident that occurred on May 15, 2000 when [claimant] tripped and fell on a raised brick surrounding a tree on the sidewalk while she was walking home along Adams Street between Johnson and Trillary Streets" in Brooklyn, New York. See ¶3 of the September 6, 2002 affirmation of Jeffrey E. Litman. Counsel has submitted an affidavit of service in which it is represented that Ms. Vogelstein was served a copy of this motion by certified mail, return receipt requested. Counsel states that a similar motion was made and granted in Ms. Vogelstein's related Supreme Court Action. Also submitted is a copy of a document signed by Ms. Vogelstein in which she states among other things that "I . . . have received my file from Litman & Litman . . . You have chosen . . .to drop my case . . ."

Ms. Vogelstein did not respond to this motion. Defendant State of New York "takes no position" on the motion. See the November 18, 2002 affirmation of Janet L. Polstein.

In view of the foregoing, I find that counsel has made a showing of good cause to be relieved. Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that:
  1. Permission to withdraw as attorney of record is hereby granted to Litman & Litman, P.C., subject to the requirements of ¶2 hereof.
  2. Within ten (10) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, Litman & Litman, P.C. shall serve upon claimant a file-stamped copy of this Decision and Order by certified mail, return receipt requested and by regular mail and shall file an affidavit of such service, with the return receipt attached, with the Clerk of the Court. Upon the Clerk's receipt of such affidavit with return receipt, counsel shall be relieved from the representation of claimant; and
  3. No further proceedings shall take place with respect to this claim until ninety (90) days after claimant is served by Litman & Litman, P.C. with a file-stamped copy of this Decision and Order, so as to permit claimant to retain new counsel should she choose to do so. Claimant shall, within 90 days of service upon her of a file-stamped copy of this Decision & Order, either have a new attorney file a notice of appearance on her behalf OR notify the Clerk of the Court (New York State Court of Claims, Box 7344, Capitol Station, Albany, NY 12224) and the State of New York (Janet L. Polstein, AAG, New York State Department of Law, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271) in writing of her intention to proceed without counsel (pro se); and
  4. If claimant fails to so appear by new counsel or notify the Clerk of the Court within such 90-day period, the claim herein will be deemed dismissed (22 NYCRR 206.15), and no further order of this Court will be required.

February 18, 2003
New York, New York
HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: the order to show cause submitted by Litman & Litman, P.C. with affirmation in support and undesignated attachments; and defendant's affirmation in response.