Pursuant to Rule 2219(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), the following papers were considered in the review of this Order to Show Cause:Papers NumberedOrder to Show Cause & Affirmation 1Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits 2DECISION AND ORDER 3Black Cats LLC (“Respondent-Subtenant”) moves pursuant to CPLR §321(b) for an Order: (1) permitting Kecia J. Weaver, Esq. to withdraw as the attorney of record for Respondent-Subtenant; and (2) staying the instant proceeding against Respondents pending a determination of the instant motion. Counsel for The Dream Big Foundation (“Petitioner”) opposes the Order to Show Cause. On January 10, 2019, the Order to Show Cause and opposition were submitted for this Court’s consideration. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent’s Order to Show Cause is DENIED in its entirety. Respondent shall file its opposition to Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment by February 5, 2019. Petitioner shall file its reply by February 14, 2019. Accordingly, the trial scheduled for January 15, 2019 is hereby vacated upon a determination of Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.Procedural HistoryThe Court record reflects that on November 13, 2018, the instant proceeding was marked final for trial for January 15, 2019. On November 27, 2018, Petitioner’s Counsel moved for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212 for an Order: (1) granting Petitioner a judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction forthwith; (2) dismissing all defenses and counterclaims; (3) setting the matter down for a hearing on the determination of the amount of rent owed and use; and occupancy; and (4) issuing a monetary judgment in favor of Petitioner. The Affirmation of Service provides that on November 21, 2018, the Notice of Motion and Supporting Papers were mailed to Respondent’s Counsel by First Class Mail.On December 10, 2018, the parties appeared in Court and stipulated to Respondent’s application for an extension of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, Respondent was to serve its opposition on Petitioner’s Counsel in hand or by email no later than January 3, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. The motion for summary judgment was subsequently adjourned to January 10, 2019. To date, Respondent’s Counsel has not filed opposition to Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and now moves to be relieved as Counsel.AnalysisCPLR §321(b)2 provides that “an 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.” Here, Respondent’s Counsel asserts that “there has been a breakdown in communication between [her] client and [her]self.” See Affirmation of Kecia J. Weaver, Esq. dated December 27, 2018, 2. In opposition, Counsel contends that “the parties reached a settlement and there is no reason why Ms. Weaver should not continue to represent her client in order to execute the settlement agreement.” See Beatrice Lesser, Esq. Affirmation in Opposition dated January 9, 2019, 8. Moreover, Petitioner’s Counsel contends that “Petitioner will be hugely prejudiced if any stay of the trial is granted”…as “Respondent owes rent in the amount of over $65,000 and pays no use and occupancy.” Id. at 13.The Court is not persuaded by Respondent’s assertions. An attorney does not have an unfettered right to unilaterally withdraw as Counsel. The intent of the rules requiring permission to withdraw is grounded on some client conduct that substantially interferes with the attorney-client relationship. See Kiernan v. Kiernan, 233 A.D.2d 867, 649 N.Y.S.2d 612 (4th Dep’t 1996). No such showing has been made here. Counsel’s moving papers fail to detail the “breakdown in communication” and is devoid of the attempts made, if any, to contact her client.Moreover, Respondents’ interest would be best served by Counsel remaining as attorney of record as Petitioner has filed a dispositive motion in this case and Counsel waited until after the filing of the motion, and after Counsel requested more time to oppose the motion, to file this Order to Show Cause. Furthermore, the record indicates that withdrawal would prejudice Petitioner’s rights. Prior to filing the motion for Summary Judgment, the case had been calendered for trial for January 15, 2019, and according to Petitioner, Respondents owe in excess of $65,000.00. See Affirmation of Beatrice Lesser, Esq., dated January 9, 2019, 13. While the Court may relieve Counsel pursuant to subsection (b) of the CPLR, subsection (b) does not set forth a provision for an automatic stay of the proceedings.1 Accordingly, Respondent’s Order to Show Cause is DENIED in its entirety. Inasmuch as the Court has not made a determination on Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, Respondent shall file its opposition to Petitioner’s motion by February 5, 2019. Petitioner shall file and serve their reply by February 14, 2019. The trial scheduled for January 15, 2019 is hereby vacated. Upon submission of the respective parties’ papers, this matter will be marked submitted for decision on February 14, 2019 on Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.Dated: January 15, 2019
