Document for Candace Carmel Barasch, Michael A. Barasch, Bradley A. Carmel Living Trust v. Lisa Schiff, Schiff Fine Art Llc, Sfa Advisory Llc, Does 1-10

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/02/2023 06:00 PM                                       INDEX NO. 652380/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2023




          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
          COUNTY OF NEW YORK



           CANDACE CARMEL BARASCH, MICHAEL A.
           BARASCH, and BRADLEY A. CARMEL LIVING
           TRUST,                                                  Index No.: 652380/2023
                                  Plaintiffs,
                                                                    AFFIRMATION OF
                                -against-                           JOHN R. CAHILL
                                                                    IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
           LISA SCHIFF, SCHIFF FINE ART LLC d/b/a                   TO STRIKE
           SFA ADVISORY, and DOES 1-10,


                                        Defendants.




                JOHN R. CAHILL, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York,

          affirms under penalty of perjury:

                1.     I am a member of ARTXLAW PLLC, attorneys for Defendants Lisa Schiff

          (“Ms. Schiff”) and Schiff Fine Art, LLC (the “Company”) (collectively, the

          “Defendants”). I make this affirmation in support of the Defendants’ motion to strike

          the Notice of Appearance based of Pick & Zabicki LLP (“Mr. Pick’s Law Firm”) (Dkt.

          No. 82) based on my personal knowledge.

                2.     The Assignment attached to the Notice of Appearance makes clear that

          the Assignee is not authorized to bring or defend actions on behalf of the Assignor.

          Indeed, the Assigned that he would not have either the right to sue or to defend against

          suits and investigations. Rather, the Assignor was to be the “sole decision-maker “in

                                                        1


                                                      1 of 2
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/02/2023 06:00 PM                                           INDEX NO. 652380/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2023




          such matters. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a “redline” mark-up

          showing the revisions to the Assignment Agreement to which the Assignee agreed.

                 3.     In addition, this Court has not approved the retainer of the Assignee’s

          own law firm to represent the Assignee in this matter. The Consignor has objected to

          such retainer.

                 4.     The Assignee is not a party to the action and Mr. Pick’s Law Firm does not

          represent any of the parties to this action. It has no right to appear for the Assignee.

                 5.     For the foregoing reasons, the Notice of Appearance of Mr. Pick’s Law

          Firm should be deemed void. See, e.g., In re Mann's Will, 86 Misc. 2d 1028, 1030, 382

         (Westchester Sur Ct. 1976) (voiding notice of appearance of party who appeared

         without status to appear in the proceeding and noting that the “appearance by an

         attorney should not have been filed without a court order permitting same pursuant to

         appropriate motion for leave therefor“).

         Dated: 2023-November-02




                                                                      /s/John R. Cahill
                                                                          John R. Cahill




                                                       2

                                                    2 of 2