Cassini The March 14, 2016, order, like the two earlier orders, granted RK's motion for leave to withdraw and provided for a stay of all proceedings for 30 days, which stay took effect as of the date of the March 14, 2016 order. MATTER OF CASSINI | 180 A.D.3d 773 (2020) Decided January 10, 2020. In this case, Marianne had two distinct attorneys of record. CASSINI However, absent special circumstances, there may be only one attorney of record for a party in a single action (see Stinnett v Sears Roebuck & Co., 201 AD2d 362, 364 [1994]; Matter of Kitsch Riker Oil Co., 23 AD2d 502 [1965]; but see Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v Russian Kurier, Inc., 140 F3d 442, 452 [2d Cir 1998] [recognizing second attorney of record for the purpose of charging lien]). According to the decision after trial, the trial took place on July 25, 26, and 27, 2016. It is undisputed that no party sought leave of the Surrogate's Court to take further proceeding against Marianne and that no formal notice to appoint another attorney was served on her. By order dated the following day, March 3, 2016, the Surrogate's Court granted Sills Cummis's withdrawal motion in the accounting proceeding. Since the issuance of the July 1, 2016 order violated the statutory stay, it should have been vacated. In his letter, Kelly contended, in essence, that the 30-day stay provided in the March 14, 2016 order had elapsed before he had even known about the order and requested that the court direct that a 30-day stay commence as of May 23, 2016, the day he received the order. "In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015 (a), a court may vacate its own judgment [or order] for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice" (Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d at 68; see CitiMortgage, Inc. v Maldonado, 171 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2019]). According to Harper, the April 6, 2016 "conference" was in connection with the cross motion in the accounting proceeding to appoint a receiver. Marianne posits that, since Reppert was found to be disabled from further representation of her, a stay pursuant to CPLR 321 (c) automatically went into effect and no further proceedings could be taken against her until a notice to appoint a new attorney was served upon her. at 842). The Surrogate's Court appropriately severed the cross motion and held it in abeyance pending the court's determination of Reppert's motion for leave to withdraw. Cassini [2] Here, in moving for leave to withdraw from representing Marianne, Reppert asserted that, for medical reasons, he had been unable to fully return to the practice of law full-time since July 2015. This pathway requires the attorney of record to move, by order to show cause, on such notice as the court may direct, to be relieved. MARIANNE NESTOR CASSINI You're all set! By Bridget Murphy at 1312). 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. Div. As a consequence, a stay went into effect with respect to the accounting proceeding on March 3, 2016.
Germany Latitude And Longitude Map,
Ball State Volleyball: Schedule 2022,
Articles M
marianne nestor cassini 2020