Tartaglione v. Tiffany

280 A.D.2d 543, 720 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1955
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 543 (Tartaglione v. Tiffany) 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
Tartaglione v. Tiffany, 280 A.D.2d 543, 720 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation and nuisance, the nonparty, Lieberman & LeBovit & Brofman, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated December 9, 1999, which denied its motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff’s counsel is directed to serve its client with a copy of this decision and order by mailing a copy to his last known address by certified mail, return receipt requested, within 30 days of the date of the decision and order, which shall constitute notice to appoint another attorney pursuant to CPLR 321 (c); and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant shall file proof of such service with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, within 10 days of the date of service; and it is further,

Ordered that no further proceedings shall be taken against the plaintiff until the expiration of 30 days after service upon him, as specified herein, of a copy of this decision and order.

In light of the plaintiff’s failure to remain in contact with the appellant law firm or to respond to any of its correspondence, and his failure to pay his retainer fee or a fee for legal services rendered, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to be relieved as counsel for the plaintiff (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [c] [1] [d], [fi [22 NYCRR 1200.15 (c) (1) (iv), (vi)]; Cashdan v Cashdan, 243 AD2d 598; Matter of Lenk, 218 AD2d 802). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Samuel
2025 NY Slip Op 34649(U) (New York Surrogate's Court, 2025)
American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. SRCC Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 51072(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Johnson v. Willis
2024 NY Slip Op 30337(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Taylor v. Mercado
2024 NY Slip Op 50048(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Benefield v. City of New York
14 Misc. 3d 603 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Countryman v. Watertown Housing Authority
13 Misc. 3d 632 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Green v. Gasparini
24 A.D.3d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Bok v. Werner
9 A.D.3d 318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rivardeneria v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
306 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
280 A.D.2d 543, 720 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tartaglione-v-tiffany-nyappdiv-2001.