Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Order to show Cause/ Notice of Motion and Affidavits /Affirmations annexed 1 Answering Affidavits/ Affirmations 2 Reply Affidavits/ Affirmations Memoranda of Law Other — Papers in Motion Seq. No. 003 3 Decision/Order Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/ Order on the motion is as follows: Respondents’ motion to vacate the judgment in this proceeding entered June 17, 2022 (Motion Seq. No. 002) is denied, and respondents’ motion to appear self-represented in this proceeding (Motion Seq. No. 003 is granted in part to the extent of relieving respondents’ counsel, permitting respondent Youssouf Sylla to proceed self-represented, but denying respondent ML Auto & Logistics LLC leave to proceed self-represented in this proceeding, as it is a corporate entity that cannot be self-represented. With regard to Motion Seq. No. 002, respondents’ motion seeks to vacate a judgment of possession and warrant of eviction arising from respondent’s undisputed breach of the parties’ stipulation of settlement by non-payment. To this end, respondents ask the Court to nullify the underlying stipulation of settlement, alleging that their attorney provided ineffective assistance and effectively coerced respondents into entering into the stipulation, which was signed by respondent Sylla individually as well as by respondents’ counsel, so-ordered by the Court (Rivera, J.) on June 2, 2022, and resulted in a judgment entered on June 23, 2022 (Rivera, J.) and a warrant of eviction dated October 7, 2022, which was stayed subject to respondents’ timely payments as required by the stipulation. As respondents were represented by counsel, and there is no indication in the court record to suggest that counsel’s authority to resolve this action had been constrained, respondents’ counsel acted with at least apparent authority in executing the stipulation at issue.1 See, 1420 Concourse Corp. v. Cruz, 175 A.D.2d 747, 749 (1st Dept. 1991) (petitioner may reasonably rely upon respondent’s counsel’s apparent authority). Further, there is nothing alleged by respondents that comes close to the high level of coercion or duress that would warrant invalidating a signed settlement agreement, particularly given the strong public policy of enforcing negotiated contract terms resolving disputes between parties. Additionally, regardless of whether respondents have any remedy against their former counsel (which the Court does not suggest), any alleged failings by counsel are not grounds to nullify the agreement. Accordingly, the Court denies respondents’ motion to vacate the stipulation and resulting judgment and eviction. Turning to respondents’ motion to relieve their counsel and proceed as self-represented parties, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. Parties, of course, have nearly unfettered discretion in their choice of counsel, and the instant motion papers support finding that the attorney-client relationship between respondents and their counsel has broken down. As such, the branch of respondents’ motion seeking to relieve their counsel is granted, their counsel is relieved, and respondent Sylla may proceed self-represented. However, respondent ML Auto & Logistics LLC, as a limited liability company, cannot proceed self-represented in this action. “An LLC, like a corporation or voluntary association, is created to shield its members from liability and once formed is a legal entity distinct from its members,” and “[accordingly, like a corporation or a voluntary association, the LLC may only be represented by an attorney and not by one of its members who is not an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York.” Michael Reilly Design, Inc. v. Houraney, 40 A.D.3d 592, 593-594 (2d Dept. 2007). See also, Manhattan Mini Stor., LLC v. Ebrain Consulting, LLC, 62 Misc. 3d 152(A), *1 (App. Term, 1st Dept. 2019) (citing Michael Reilly Design and dismissing appeal by LLC not represented by attorney). Because the Court must deny respondent ML Auto & Logistics LLC’s request to proceed self-represented in this proceeding, the Court will briefly stay this proceeding to permit respondent ML Auto & Logistics LLC to obtain new counsel. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondents’ motion (Motion Seq. No. 002) to vacate is denied; and it is further ORDERED that respondents’ motion (Motion Seq. No. 003) to relieve their counsel is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further ORDERED that Jessica Nicole Scheiber is relieved as counsel for respondents ML Auto & Logistics LLC and Youssouf Sylla; and it is further ORDERED that Jessica Nicole Scheiber serve a copy of this order upon respondents ML Auto & Logistics LLC and Youssouf Sylla by first-class mail within 10 days of the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that respondent Youssouf Sylla is granted leave to proceed as a self-represented party in this proceeding; and it is further ORDERED that respondent ML Auto & Logistics LLC’s application for leave to proceed as a self-represented party in this proceeding is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the stay dated November 1, 2022 in Motion Seq. No. 002 is lifted; and it is further ORDERED that the stay dated November 1, 2022 in Motion Seq. No. 003 is continued, and all other matters in this proceeding are stayed, until January 31, 2023. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court Dated: December 23, 2022
