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
PLAINTIFF CHANGED LANES, CUT OFF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CRASHED INTO THE REAR OF THE CAR IN FRONT; DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE MOTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE IT; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT AWARDED DEFENDANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​
42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ADEQUATELY ALLEGE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ACTED PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR CUSTOM (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defect in Basketball Court Was Concealed Precluded Summary Judgment Based upon Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY AS A DEFENSE TO THIS DEFAMATION ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ CRITICISM OF PLAINTIFF DOG-GROOMER POSTED ON SOCIAL MEDIA (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Know Cause of Fall
FALL FROM A LADDER WHICH WAS NOT SECURED, AND WHICH SHOOK AND THEN KICKED OUT FROM UNDER PLAINTIFF, ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC” DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE.

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 © 2026 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...