Genn v. Ratnathicam

2020 NY Slip Op 05810, 130 N.Y.S.3d 669, 187 A.D.3d 539
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 2020
DocketIndex No. 22006/15E Appeal No. 12076N Case No. 2020-00942
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 05810 (Genn v. Ratnathicam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Genn v. Ratnathicam, 2020 NY Slip Op 05810, 130 N.Y.S.3d 669, 187 A.D.3d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Genn v Ratnathicam (2020 NY Slip Op 05810)
Genn v Ratnathicam
2020 NY Slip Op 05810
Decided on October 15, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: October 15, 2020
Before: Renwick, J.P., Webber, González, Scarpulla, JJ.

Index No. 22006/15E Appeal No. 12076N Case No. 2020-00942

[*1]David Genn, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Anjali Ratnathicam, M.D., et al., Defendants. Morelli Law Firm PLLC, Nonparty Respondent.


Law Office of Richard A. Altman, New York (Richard A. Altman of counsel), for appellants.

Morelli Law Firm, New York (Erin P. Mullen Sala of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George J. Silver, J.), entered on or about January 14, 2020, which granted the motion of plaintiffs' attorney to withdraw as counsel, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiffs' attorney's motion for permission to withdraw as counsel (see generally Matter of Dunn [Brackett], 205 NY 398, 403 [1912]; J.S. v P.B., 176 AD3d 790, 791 [2d Dept 2019]).

The record demonstrated good and sufficient cause for withdrawal, and that reasonable notice had been provided to plaintiffs (see Mason v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 38 AD3d 258 [1st Dept 2007]; Lake v M.P.C. Trucking, 279 AD2d 813, 814 [3d Dept 2001]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 15, 2020



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ingram v. City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 31539(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Paulino v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 31846(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Marte v. 2013 Amsterdam LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 24086 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 05810, 130 N.Y.S.3d 669, 187 A.D.3d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/genn-v-ratnathicam-nyappdiv-2020.