New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ZAREMSKI v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-040-048, Claim No. 112780, Motion No. M-73750


Claimant’s counsel’s motion pursuant to CPLR § 321(b)(2) to withdraw granted.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
DeLorenzo Law Firm, LLPBy: Dana M. Boniewski, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Saul Aronson, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 26, 2007

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant’s counsel, by Order to Show Cause, has moved pursuant to CPLR § 321(b)(2), for an order granting them leave to withdraw. Counsel has submitted proof of service that Claimant and the Attorney General have been served with copies of the motion. As directed by the Court, Claimant was served by first-class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested and the State was served by first-class mail. The Court has not received any opposition to this motion to withdraw.

In Dana M. Boniewski’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion, counsel asserts that her firm has explained to Claimant that there is a potential conflict in representing him and the passenger who was riding on Claimant’s motorcycle at the time of the incident. Claimant understands the situation and has agreed to end the attorney/client relationship (see Mr. Zaremski’s sworn Statement Discontinuing Client/Attorney Relationship dated May 7, 2007 attached to Motion).

Claimant has raised no objection to the withdrawal. In fact, Claimant executed the above-referenced Statement Discontinuing Client/Attorney Relationship. Therefore, the Court can see no significant resultant prejudice to Claimant if counsel’s request is granted, and counsel has satisfied the Court that a conflict of interest exists between the DeLorenzo Law Firm, LLP and its client sufficient to warrant the granting of this motion (Solomon v Solomon, 172 AD2d 1081; Sansiviero v Sanders, 117 AD2d 794, appeal dismissed 68 NY2d 805, rearg denied 68 NY2d 998).

The motion is granted and the Chief Clerk is directed to amend his records by replacing movant’s name as attorney of record and, for now, indicating that Claimant will act on his own behalf. Claimant is to advise the Court by November 30, 2007 if he has obtained new counsel, is appearing pro se, or wishes to withdraw the Claim. Ms. Boniewski is directed to turn over any and all records relating to this action to Claimant, or to new counsel for Claimant, upon request. This Claim was filed approximately 12 months ago and, based upon a review of the Court’s file, no discovery has taken place. Thus, if he is still interested in prosecuting his claim, Claimant will have time to retain new counsel and Defendant will not be prejudiced by any delay in trial attributable to counsel’s withdrawal.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, it is:

ORDERED that Claimant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Claimant’s counsel mail, by first-class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of this Decision and Order to Claimant, at his last-known address, and also serve the same upon the Attorney General by first-class mail. Thereafter, Claimant’s counsel is to file the affidavits of service in regard to the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court.

September 26, 2007
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were considered on Claimant’s attorney’s motion for an order permitting withdrawal:

Papers Numbered

Order to Show Cause, Affidavit
and Exhibits Attached 1

Affirmation of Defense Counsel 2

Filed Papers: Claim and Answer