The following numbered papers were used on this motion: Submitted by Siegel & Coonerty, LLP, Prior Attorneys for Plaintiff NYSCEF Document No. 123: Notice of Motion NYSCEF Document No. 124: Affirmation in Support NYSCEF Document No. 125: Exhibit A — Retainer with the Jackson Firm NYSCEF Document No. 126: Exhibit B — Co-Counsel Retainer Agreement with the Jackson and Siegel Firms NYSCEF Document No. 127: Exhibit C — Substitution Letter from Bogoraz Firm NYSCEF Document No. 128: Exhibit D — Stipulation of Discontinuance NYSCEF Document No. 129: Exhibit E — Order to Show Cause NYSCEF Document No. 130: Exhibit F — OCA Retainer Statement Submitted by Bogoraz Law Group, Attorneys for Plaintiff NYSCEF Document No. 158: Affirmation in Opposition NYSCEF Document No. 159: Email Correspondences Submitted by Siegel & Coonerty, LLP, Prior Attorneys for Plaintiff NYSCEF Document No. 160: Reply Affirmation in Support DECISION AND ORDER Background This is a motion by Plaintiff’s prior co-counsel, the law firm of Siegel & Coonerty, LLP, requesting the Court to grant leave to file a late retainer statement with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) or deem the OCA retainer statement filed on October 23, 2023 timely filed nunc pro tunc. The motion was filed on January 31, 2024. (See NYSCEF Doc No. 123, notice of motion.) Following a motor vehicle accident on July 30, 2017, Plaintiff executed and consented to a co-counsel retainer agreement whereby Jackson Legal Group, P.C. (Jackson), his original attorneys, retained Siegel & Coonerty, LLP (Siegel) to act as co-counsel to Plaintiff (see NYSCEF Doc No. 124, affirmation in support
3, 5). However, on February 8, 2021, Plaintiff substituted Bogoraz Law Group, P.C. (Bogoraz) in place of the Jackson and Siegel firms (see id. 6). Siegel believes that another firm, Chernyy & Associates, P.C. (Chernyy) was co-counsel to Bogoraz (see id. 7). The case ultimately being settled on October 2, 2023 (see id. 8). At this point the various attorneys of the Plaintiff in the case — past and present — have come to an impasse in determining how to split the attorney fees, and complicating the issue is that the Siegel firm was unable to locate a filed OCA retainer statement (see id.
