From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gersten v. Gersten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 24, 1987
134 A.D.2d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Summary

stating that motion procedure is required even for attorneys who have been discharged

Summary of this case from In re Chase

Opinion

November 24, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.).


Having been advised by its client that its services were no longer desired, plaintiff's attorneys, the appellant law firm herein, moved for permission to withdraw. In response, defendant cross-moved for summary judgment on his counterclaim. IAS denied the motion to withdraw, and granted the cross motion for summary judgment, because appellant did not appear in court on the return date of the motions for oral argument. Moving for reargument, appellant explained that it was unaware of IAS's rule that every motion be orally argued, and that when it did learn of the rule after receiving a telephone call from Chambers on the return date, it was too late for it to come to court, its office being out of town. With respect to the cross motion, appellant also asserted that it was never served with the papers. In opposition, defendant's attorney did not address the matter of service, and proof of service of the cross motion is not included in the record. The court denied reargument on the ground that it did not overlook any facts or misapprehend the law.

We deem appellant's motion to reargue as one to vacate a default, and, so considered, review denial thereof pursuant to CPLR 5520 (c) (see, Blanco v. RKO Theatres, 43 A.D.2d 953). The default should have been vacated upon appellant's showing that its failure to appear for oral argument was inadvertent, and, upon vacatur, appellant's motion for permission to withdraw, a procedure required even of attorneys who have been discharged when a change of attorneys is not effected by written consent (CPLR 321 [b]), should have been granted in view of irrefutable evidence that appellant had been discharged by plaintiff (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [B] [4]). Defendant's cross motion for summary judgment should not have been entertained without proof of service.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Asch and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Gersten v. Gersten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 24, 1987
134 A.D.2d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

stating that motion procedure is required even for attorneys who have been discharged

Summary of this case from In re Chase
Case details for

Gersten v. Gersten

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL GERSTEN, Appellant, v. KENNETH GERSTEN, Respondent. FERRARO ROGERS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 24, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Sassower v. Blaustein

We find that the orders were not issued in violation of CPLR 321. Clearly, CPLR 321 (c), with its 30-day…

Klein v. Klein

Pursuant to CPLR 321(b) "an attorney of record" may withdraw or be changed either through a consent signed by…