Opinion
# 2016-016-027 Claim No. 126274 Motion No. M-88029
05-11-2016
BART DOWLING v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Vozza & Huguenot By: F. Frank Vozza, Esq. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Suzette Corinne Rivera, AAG
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2016-016-027 |
| Claimant(s): | BART DOWLING |
| Claimant short name: | DOWLING |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126274 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88029 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Alan C. Marin |
| Claimant's attorney: | Vozza & Huguenot By: F. Frank Vozza, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Suzette Corinne Rivera, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 11, 2016 |
| City: | New York |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) | 2016-016-028 |
Decision
By Order to Show Cause, the Law Office of Vozza & Huguenot has moved for permission to be relieved as counsel to claimant Bart Dowling. The defendant State of New York has taken no position on the motion.
Mr. Dowling has alleged that the State was negligent in failing to properly maintain the roadway on which he was riding his motorcycle on the morning of May 2, 2015 - - the Williamsburg Bridge east bound exit ramp that leads to the Brooklyn Queens Expressway.
Under CPLR § 321 (b) (2), permission of the court in which the suit is pending is required before a lawyer may withdraw as counsel for a litigant. To succeed on such a motion, the attorney must show reasonable notice to the client and good cause for the withdrawal (J. M. Heinike Assoc. v Liberty Natl. Bank, 142 AD2d 929 [4th Dept 1988]). What constitutes good cause lies within the discretion of the court.
With regard to notice, Mr. F. Frank Vozza has submitted proof of same in his Affirmation in Support of his firm's application (see exhibit 1). Secondly, the Court concludes from its consideration of the Affirmation in Support that there is good cause for withdrawal.
Having reviewed the submissions, I find that the Law Office of Vozza & Huguenot has satisfied the burden to sustain this motion.
The following submissions have been reviewed by the Court - - from claimant's counsel: an Order to Show Cause and an Affirmation in Support (with exhibit 1). No submissions have been received by the Court from claimant Bart Dowling or the defendant State of New York.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that motion No. M-88029 is granted to the extent that:
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of this Decision and Order, the Law Office of Vozza & Huguenot shall serve a file-stamped copy of this Decision and Order on claimant at his last known address by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, and on defendant by regular mail;
2. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Law Office of Vozza & Huguenot shall file with the Clerk of the Court proof of service on claimant by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, and on defendant by regular mail. Upon the Clerk's receipt of such proofs of service, the Law Office of Vozza & Huguenot shall be relieved from representation of claimant;
3. Claimant shall, within ninety (90) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, notify the Clerk of the Court (New York State Court of Claims, Box 7344, Capitol Station, Albany, NY 12224) and the State of New York (New York State Department of Law, 120 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10271) in writing of his intention to proceed pro se (without counsel) or file a notice of appearance by a new attorney;
4. Prosecution of these claims (Nos. 126274 and 126293) is stayed pending the conclusion of the foregoing ninety (90) day period.
Although the Order to Show Cause was captioned with claim No. 126274 only, a second claim arising out of the same facts, claim No. 126293, is also pending before the Court. As the attorney's representation of claimant in this matter encompasses the two claims, the Court will consider the motion to withdraw as counsel to apply to both. --------
May 11, 2016
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims