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