New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HOLMAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-018-335, Claim No. 101699, Motion No. M-68745


Synopsis


Claimant's counsel's motion to be relieved from further representation of Claimant is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2004-018-335
Claimant(s):
KENNETH HOLMAN
Claimant short name:
HOLMAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101699
Motion number(s):
M-68745
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Claimant's attorney:
THE PROSKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.By: Arnold W. Proskin, Esquire
Defendant's attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Joel L. Marmelstein, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 23, 2004
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant's counsel brings a motion, by Order to Show Cause, seeking an order relieving

the Proskin Law Firm from further representation of Claimant. Defendant opposes the motion. Claimant has also filed a response to the motion, opposing his counsel's request to be relieved from further representation.

This case has had an unfortunate and wretched history.[1] Claimant and this law firm have had anything but a productive relationship, and the case has failed to advance toward a resolution for over two years. This coupled with counsel's assertion of a factor authorizing a permissive withdrawal pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 1200.15(c) warrants in this Court's discretion relieving this firm from further representation of Claimant.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the motion of the Proskin Law Firm to withdraw as attorney for Claimant is GRANTED and it is further

ORDERED, that Claimant shall have 90 days from the date this Decision and Order is filed with the Clerk of the Court to retain new counsel to represent him in this action (new counsel should file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of the Court within the same time frame), or to advise the Court, in writing, that he will be proceeding pro se; and it is further

ORDERED, that a copy of this Decision and Order shall be served upon Claimant by the Proskin Law Firm by certified mail, return receipt requested and by regular mail within 8 days of the date this Decision and Order is filed with the Clerk of the Court and a copy shall also be served by regular mail upon Joel L. Marmelstein, Assistant Attorney General. The affidavit(s) of service shall be prepared and filed by the Proskin Law Firm with the Clerk of the Court of Claims within three days of service.


September 23, 2004
Syracuse, New York

HON. DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court has considered the following documents in deciding this motion:


Notice of Motion.................................................................................................1


Affirmation of Arnold W. Proskin, Esquire, in support......................................2


Affirmation of Joel L. Marmelstein, Esquire, Assistant Attorney

General, in opposition, with exhibits attached.........................................3


"Affirmation" of Kenneth Holman, Claimant, in opposition, with

exhibits attached.......................................................................................4


[1]See Holman v State of New York, Ct Cl, J. Fitzpatrick, signed February 10, 2003, Claim No. 101699, Motion No. M-65652; Holman v State of New York, Ct Cl, J. Fitzpatrick, signed September 23, 2003, Claim No. 101699; Holman v State of New York, Ct Cl, J. Fitzpatrick, signed July 6, 2004, Claim No. 101699, Motion No. M-67937; Holman v State of New York, Ct Cl, J. Fitzpatrick, signed July 19, 2004, Claim No. 101699, Motion No. M-68430.