Preview
(FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 1272872023 10:15 AM INDEX NO. 603046/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2023
SHORT FORM ORDER
SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK
PRESENT: _Honorable Danielle M. Peterson
Justice of the Supreme Court
TRIAL/IAS, PART 24
THE AVANZA GROUP, LLC, NASSAU COUNTY
Plaintiff,
-against- Index No.: 603046/2023
UTILITY MANAGEMENT & CONSRUCTION, LLC Motion Seq. No.: 001
D/B/A UTILITY MANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION, Motion Submitted: 8/24/23
LLC and WILLIAM C. ROBINSON,
Defendants.
The following papers read on this motion:
Order to Show Cause/Affirmation in Support/
Good Faith Affirmation/Supporting Exhibits.
M. Cabrera & Associates, P.C. (“the Firm” or “Counsel”), counsel for Defendants, Utility
Management & Consruction, LLC d/b/a Utility Management & Construction, LLC (“Company
Defendant”) and William C. Robinson (“Robinson”) (collectively “Defendants”), move this Court,
pursuant to CPLR 321[b][2] and Disciplinary Rule 2-110[C][1][d], for an order to be relieved as
counsel and to withdraw as attorney of record. There is no opposition.
In his moving papers, Defendants’ counsel, William Y. Fowlkes, Esq., affirms that the Firm
was retained by Defendants in February 2023 for purposes of defending them in the above captioned
lawsuit. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, the Defendants agreed to pay a flat fee to defend the
lawsuit in three monthly installments. Counsel avers that pursuant to the aforementioned agreement,
Defendants still owe a remaining balance of $3,730.00, which they have refused to pay. According
to Counsel’s affirmation, the last communication Defendants, or their agents, had with the Firm was
on May 22, 2023, when the Firm’s assistant spoke with Robinson by telephone. Counsel further
asserts that “the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to the point where Counsel is unable
to continue to represent Defendants in the defense of the above-referenced action ... .”
“It is well-settled that in civil cases an attorney will be permitted to withdraw where a client
refuses to pay his or her reasonable fees” (Stephen Eldridge Realty Corp. v. Green, 174 AD2d 564,
tof
(FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 1272872023 10:15 AM INDEX NO. 603046/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2023
565-566 [2d Dept 1991]) citing Holmes v. Y.J.A. Realty Corp., 128 AD2d 482, 483; DR
2-110[C][1][f]). Disciplinary Rule 2-110{C][1][d] of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that an attorney’s withdrawal from employment is permissible where a client “renders it
unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively,” and Disciplinary Rule
2-110[C]{1][f] provides for similar relief where a client “[dJeliberately disregards an agreement or
obligations to the lawyer as to expenses or fees.” Likewise, Rule 1.16[c][5] of the New York Rules
of Professional Conduct permits an attorney to withdraw from representation when “the client
deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees.” Indeed,
“[w]here a client repudiates a reasonable fee arrangement there is no obligation on the part of
counsel to finance the litigation or render gratuitous services” (Holmes v. Y.J.A. Realty Corp., 128
AD2d 482, 483 [1st Dept 1987]). Withdrawal of counsel is also justifiable where there is adequate
evidence showing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (Tucker v. Schwartzapfel Lawyers,
P.C., 196 AD3d 527 [2d Dept 2021]; Robinson v. Friedman Mgt. Corp., 49 AD3d 436 [1st Dept
2008]). “The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion
of the trial court” (Cashdan v. Cashdan, 243 AD2d 598, 598 [2d Dept 1997]).
Here, Counsel has demonstrated that there is good and sufficient cause for this Court to grant
the application.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendants’ Counsel’s application to be relieved is GRANTED without
opposition and Counsel is relieved in these proceedings provided that a copy of this decision and
order is hereby served upon the Defendants, as well as upon all of attorneys of record, in same
manner provided in original Order to Show Cause within ten (10) days of the date of this decision
with proof of service filed with this court within twenty (20) days of the date of this decision; and
it is further
ORDERED, that this matter shall be stayed for 60 days, and all parties or their counsel are
directed to appear in this part on 72.27 , 2024 at 10:00 a.m. for a preliminary conference.
Failure to appear on the foregoing date may be considered an abandonment of the action or defense
of the action.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: fr -2028
|CrurdeLD~=
Hon. Danielle M. Peterson J. S. C.
ENTERED
Dec 28 2023
NASSAU COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE
2
_ 2-of
Preview
(FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 1272872023 10:15 AM INDEX NO. 603046/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2023 SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK PRESENT: _Honorable Danielle M. Peterson Justice of the Supreme Court TRIAL/IAS, PART 24 THE AVANZA GROUP, LLC, NASSAU COUNTY Plaintiff, -against- Index No.: 603046/2023 UTILITY MANAGEMENT & CONSRUCTION, LLC Motion Seq. No.: 001 D/B/A UTILITY MANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION, Motion Submitted: 8/24/23 LLC and WILLIAM C. ROBINSON, Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Order to Show Cause/Affirmation in Support/ Good Faith Affirmation/Supporting Exhibits. M. Cabrera & Associates, P.C. (“the Firm” or “Counsel”), counsel for Defendants, Utility Management & Consruction, LLC d/b/a Utility Management & Construction, LLC (“Company Defendant”) and William C. Robinson (“Robinson”) (collectively “Defendants”), move this Court, pursuant to CPLR 321[b][2] and Disciplinary Rule 2-110[C][1][d], for an order to be relieved as counsel and to withdraw as attorney of record. There is no opposition. In his moving papers, Defendants’ counsel, William Y. Fowlkes, Esq., affirms that the Firm was retained by Defendants in February 2023 for purposes of defending them in the above captioned lawsuit. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, the Defendants agreed to pay a flat fee to defend the lawsuit in three monthly installments. Counsel avers that pursuant to the aforementioned agreement, Defendants still owe a remaining balance of $3,730.00, which they have refused to pay. According to Counsel’s affirmation, the last communication Defendants, or their agents, had with the Firm was on May 22, 2023, when the Firm’s assistant spoke with Robinson by telephone. Counsel further asserts that “the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to the point where Counsel is unable to continue to represent Defendants in the defense of the above-referenced action ... .” “It is well-settled that in civil cases an attorney will be permitted to withdraw where a client refuses to pay his or her reasonable fees” (Stephen Eldridge Realty Corp. v. Green, 174 AD2d 564, tof (FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 1272872023 10:15 AM INDEX NO. 603046/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/21/2023 565-566 [2d Dept 1991]) citing Holmes v. Y.J.A. Realty Corp., 128 AD2d 482, 483; DR 2-110[C][1][f]). Disciplinary Rule 2-110{C][1][d] of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that an attorney’s withdrawal from employment is permissible where a client “renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively,” and Disciplinary Rule 2-110[C]{1][f] provides for similar relief where a client “[dJeliberately disregards an agreement or obligations to the lawyer as to expenses or fees.” Likewise, Rule 1.16[c][5] of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct permits an attorney to withdraw from representation when “the client deliberately disregards an agreement or obligation to the lawyer as to expenses or fees.” Indeed, “[w]here a client repudiates a reasonable fee arrangement there is no obligation on the part of counsel to finance the litigation or render gratuitous services” (Holmes v. Y.J.A. Realty Corp., 128 AD2d 482, 483 [1st Dept 1987]). Withdrawal of counsel is also justifiable where there is adequate evidence showing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (Tucker v. Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C., 196 AD3d 527 [2d Dept 2021]; Robinson v. Friedman Mgt. Corp., 49 AD3d 436 [1st Dept 2008]). “The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court” (Cashdan v. Cashdan, 243 AD2d 598, 598 [2d Dept 1997]). Here, Counsel has demonstrated that there is good and sufficient cause for this Court to grant the application. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, that Defendants’ Counsel’s application to be relieved is GRANTED without opposition and Counsel is relieved in these proceedings provided that a copy of this decision and order is hereby served upon the Defendants, as well as upon all of attorneys of record, in same manner provided in original Order to Show Cause within ten (10) days of the date of this decision with proof of service filed with this court within twenty (20) days of the date of this decision; and it is further ORDERED, that this matter shall be stayed for 60 days, and all parties or their counsel are directed to appear in this part on 72.27 , 2024 at 10:00 a.m. for a preliminary conference. Failure to appear on the foregoing date may be considered an abandonment of the action or defense of the action. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: fr -2028 |CrurdeLD~= Hon. Danielle M. Peterson J. S. C. ENTERED Dec 28 2023 NASSAU COUNTY COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 2 _ 2-of