You are here: / / NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS...

NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PAY REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND FAILURE TO COOPERATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the nonparty law firm, Kaufman, should have been allowed to withdraw as counsel for defendants T & V and Komninos based upon defendant’s failure to pay attorney’s fees and failure to cooperate:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the law firm’s unopposed motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for T & V and Komninos. An attorney may be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable legal fees (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16[c][5] … ). Likewise, an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client “fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16[c][7] … ).

Here, the law firm established that T & V and Komninos failed in their obligation to pay the legal fees earned by the law firm and further failed to cooperate in their representation. Moreover, T & V and Komninos did not oppose that branch of the law firm’s motion which was for leave to withdraw as their counsel. Accordingly, that branch of the motion which was for leave to withdraw as counsel for T & V and Komninos should have been granted … . Villata v Kokkinos, 2019 NY Slip Op 02143, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

​

You might also like
Single-Family House Exemption to Labor Law Action Applied
Criteria for Negligent Care of a Child by a Nonparent Explained—Effect on Proof Requirements of Amnesia Suffered by the Injured Party Noted
TO CHALLENGE THE BANK’S STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE DEFENDANT MUST ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; MERELY DENYING THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
“Substantial Evidence” Standard of Court Review Explained
CRITIERIA FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE NOT MET.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
Ad on Internet, Together With Communications With Florida Medical Group, Did Not Confer Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over the Group in a Malpractice Action Based On Surgery Done in Florida

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AUDIT TRAIL, I.E., METADATA SHOWING WHO ACCESSED PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS,... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS...