Designs by F.M.C., Inc. v. Unique First Ltd.
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 51213(U) (Designs by F.M.C., Inc. v. Unique First Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| Designs by F.M.C., Inc. v Unique First Ltd. |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 51213(U) |
| Decided on September 5, 2024 |
| Supreme Court, New York County |
| Reed, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on September 5, 2024
Designs by F.M.C., Inc., Plaintiff,
against Unique First Ltd., ABC COMPANIES, and JOHN DOES, Defendants. UNIQUE FIRST LTD., Plaintiff, against DESIGNS BY FMC, INC. D/B/A FASHION MARKETING CO. A/D/B/A SILVERSPECK.COM, WILLIAM NUSSEN, 1529-33 60TH STREET LLC, and BEYOND WORDS COLLECTION, LLC, Defendants. |
Index No. 652129/2019
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant:
Zvi Storch of STORCH LAW, P.C.
Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff:
Andreas E. Christou of WOODS LONERGAN PLLC
Robert R. Reed, J.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 were read on this motion for ATTORNEY - RELIEVE.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 were read on this motion for ATTORNEY - WITHDRAW.
Motion sequence numbers 005 and 006 are consolidated for disposition herein.
In motion sequence number 005, law firm Storch Law, P.C. (Storch Law), counsel for plaintiff Designs by F.M.C., Inc. and third-party defendants Designs by F.M.C., Inc. d/b/a Fashion Marketing Co. a/d/b/a Silverspeck.com, William Nussen, 1529-33 60th Street LLC, and Beyond Words Collection, LLC, moves pursuant to CPLR 321 (b) (2) for an order granting leave to withdraw as counsel for the third-party defendant Beyond Words Collection, LLC (Beyond Words), and staying all proceedings in this action for forty-five days.
In motion sequence number 006, Storch Law moves pursuant to CPLR 321 (b) (2) for an order granting leave to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiff Designs by F.M.C., Inc. and third-party defendants Designs by F.M.C., Inc. d/b/a Fashion Marketing Co. a/d/b/a Silverspeck.com, William Nussen, and 1529-33 60th Street LLC (the Nussen parties) and staying all proceedings in this action for forty-five days.
Defendant/third-party plaintiff Unique First Ltd. (Unique First) opposes both motions to the extent they request a forty-five day stay. For the following reasons, the motions are both granted in part.
CPLR 321 (b) (2) provides:
"[a]n attorney of record may withdraw or be changed by order of the court in which the action is pending, upon motion on such notice to the client of the withdrawing attorney, to the attorneys of all other parties in the action or, if a party appears without an attorney, to the party, and to any other person, as the court may direct."
For withdrawal to be permitted, "[t]he attorney must demonstrate that good cause exists to end the relationship with the client, such as by showing an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship or a failure of cooperation by the client" (Matter of Cassini, 182 AD3d 13, 40 [2d Dept 2020]). "The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the court's decision should not be overturned absent a showing of an improvident exercise of discretion" (Applebaum v Einstein, 163 AD3d 905, 907 [2nd Dept 2018]).
Motion sequence number 005 — Beyond Words
In motion sequence number 005, Zvi Storch, Esq., principal of Storch Law, explains that his purported appearance for Beyond Words was "caused by mistake" (Storch affirmation in support of mot seq No. 005 ¶ 2).
After plaintiff Designs by F.M.C., Inc. commenced this action on April 10, 2019, defendant Unique First Ltd. (Unique First) filed a third-party summons and complaint on May 2, 2019, against the third-party defendants, including Beyond Words. Plaintiff's previous counsel, Justin H. Scheier, signed a stipulation purporting to waive any defense of improper service and [*2]accept service of the third-party complaint on behalf of all third-party defendants named by Unique First, including Beyond Words (see NYSCEF doc. Nos. 7, 8). Scheier then filed a third-party answer on behalf of all third-party defendants.
In October 2021, Storch Law filed with the court a consent to change attorney executed by Scheier, Storch Law, and third-party defendant Nussen, purportedly on behalf of all third-party defendants, consenting to the substitution of Storch Law for Scheier as attorney of record for all named third-party defendants (see NYSCEF doc. No. 40). Counselor Storch affirms that, at the time, he understood that Nussen owned Beyond Words, as he did the other third-party defendants, and was authorizing Storch Law to represent Beyond Words (see Storch affirmation in support of mot ¶10). Accordingly, in subsequent submissions to the court, Storch Law listed itself as the attorney for all third-party defendants, including Beyond Words.
In his affirmation, Storch affirms that he has learned recently, during a deposition of Nussen, that Nussen does not, and never did, own Beyond Words (see id. ¶ 13). Following the deposition, Storch confirmed with Nussen that he does not own Beyond Words. Nussen informed him that, in executing the consent letter, he did not notice the inclusion of Beyond Words among the parties. Storch also spoke with Scheier, who stated he was under the impression that Nussen owned Beyond Words. Storch represents that he does not know whether the company exists, who its principals are, or where it is located.
An attorney "has no power to appear for another, unless authorized so to do" and, without authority, "[h]is appearance, under such circumstances, is not the appearance or act of the party in any sense, but his own act, for the consequences of which he alone is responsible, the same as any other agent assuming to act for another without authority in any other matter" (Skyline Agency v Ambrose Coppotelli, 117 AD2d 135, 143 [2d Dept 1986]).
Here, Storch Law submits sufficient evidence, by way of attorney affirmation, to show that neither Scheier nor Storch Law had ever been engaged to represent Beyond Words, and, therefore, their purporting to appear for Beyond Words was without authority (see id.). Therefore, the court recognizes that Storch Law does not represent Beyond Words. Storch Law demonstrates sufficient cause to be relieved as counsel for Beyond Words.
Motion sequence number 006 — Nussen parties
Counselor Storch submits an affirmation dated August 8, 2024 in which he affirms, under penalty of perjury, that he and Storch Law seek to withdraw as counsel for the Nussen parties because Nussen, who owns the other Nussen parties, has informed him that "another attorney would take over the litigation in this matter" and that "he did not want undersigned to continue representing him in this matter" (Storch affirmation in support of mot seq. No. 006 ¶ 4).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 51213(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/designs-by-fmc-inc-v-unique-first-ltd-nysupctnewyork-2024.