You are here: / / ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE...
, ,

ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE TO THE INABILITY OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO CONTINUE FOR MEDICAL REASONS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that orders issued when a stay was in effect pursuant to CPLR 321(c), due to the inability of petitioner’s counsel to continue for medical reasons, should have been vacated. The petitioner is Oleg Cassini’s (the fashion designer’s) wife and the underlying matter is the heavily litigated (to say the least) administration of his estate. The opinion is overwhelming in its detail and cannot be fairly summarized here:

On these appeals, we consider the interplay between CPLR 321(b)(2), which permits the attorney of record for a party to withdraw by order of the court, with the court having the ability to stay proceedings pending substitution of new counsel, and CPLR 321(c), which automatically and effectively suspends all proceedings against a party whose attorney becomes incapacitated until 30 days after notice to appoint another attorney has been served upon that party. In this contentious, complex estate litigation, the Surrogate’s Court determined, in the context of a motion by the attorneys for the petitioner to withdraw from representing her, that the attorney primarily responsible for the matter had become unable to continue to represent the petitioner due to health reasons. While the Surrogate’s Court relieved counsel and provided for a 30-day stay of proceedings, it failed to require that the adverse parties serve the orders relieving counsel upon the litigant whose counsel was permitted to withdraw. The adverse parties themselves failed to serve the orders and also to serve the petitioner with a notice to appoint new counsel. However, several months later, the petitioner appeared with prospective new counsel at a court conference and was advised by the court that a trial would be conducted some six weeks later, regardless of whether the petitioner was present and regardless of whether the petitioner had representation. This was, under the circumstances, the practical equivalent of more than 30 days’ notice to the litigant to appoint new counsel. In conformity with the controlling statutory and decisional authorities, and to protect the litigant’s right to legal representation, we conclude that the judicial determinations rendered in between the Surrogate’s Court determination of incapacity and its subsequent practical notification of a deadline to appoint counsel should be vacated. Matter of Cassini, 2020 NY Slip Op 01057, Second Dept 2-13-2o

 

You might also like
ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY, HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF’S PASSENGER, HOWEVER.
Constructive Trust Properly Imposed on Real Property, Criteria Explained
THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (1) FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO SIGN A RELEASE AND (2) FOR RESCISSION OF THE RELEASE BASED UPON UNILATERAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, IMPOSED AN INJUNCTION AND DETERMINED ISSUES OF FACT; NO MOTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT AND NO HEARING WAS HELD (SECOND DEPT).
Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted
Defendant Did Not Forfeit His Right to Counsel by Making Four Applications for Reassignment of Assigned Counsel/Evidence of Burglary and Criminal Mischief Insufficient–Possession of Stolen Items Not Enough
PETITIONER WAS 14 IN 1990 WHEN HE MURDERED A CLASSMATE AND THE CHILD SHE WAS BABYSITTING, THE PAROLE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED PAROLE FOR THE FIFTH TIME, THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DID NOT BASE THEIR DECISION SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

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

ALTHOUGH TWO OF MOTHER’S FIVE CHILDREN, AS FULL-TIME COLLEGE STUDENTS,... DECEDENT’S WORK AS A WELDER NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240...