The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 218, 219, 222, 227, 228, 231, 249, 250 were read on this motion for ATTORNEY — WITHDRAWAL. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This action was filed in connection with arbitration proceedings, by which Petitioners Marcus and Lisa Abrams (the “Petitioners”) ultimately obtained an award of $1,305,013.70 against Respondent Russell Abrams and $2,939,976.31 against RussellCar Inversora, S.A. and related entities, which are owned by Russell Abrams but are not named in this action (NYSCEF 166, at 20). This Court confirmed the arbitration award in a separate proceeding (Abrams v. Abrams, Index No. 654992/2022, Dkt. 110). In the ensuing judgment enforcement litigation, much of the parties’ focus has centered around the property at 45 West 70th Street (the “Building”), which Respondent West 70th Owners Corp. previously owned and transferred to non-party entity SEPI Realty, LLC (see id., Dkt. 135, at 2 [requesting an injunction preventing respondents and non-parties from selling or encumbering the property]). There is a pending contempt motion in this action (NYSCEF 221). The issue before the Court is a withdrawal motion filed by Respondents’ counsel, the Law Offices of Daniel A. Singer, PLLC (“DSPLLC”). On May 18, 2024, DSPLLC moved to withdraw as counsel to Respondents Russell Abrams, Sandra Abrams, and West 70th Owners Corp. (together, the “Respondents”), supported by the affidavit of counsel of record, Daniel A. Singer (NYSCEF 184). The Court signed the Order to Show Cause on May 30, 2024 (NYSCEF 219). At the time, the Court declined to order an interim stay pending the determination of this motion (id.). DSPLLC alleged an irretrievable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and that his clients had not paid his fees (NYSCEF 186, 2). Counsel of record to Petitioners Marcus Abrams and Lisa Abrams, Harold Burke,1 filed responsive papers asking for the Court to require Respondents designate a Process Agent if the motion were granted (NYSCEF 222, 11). Respondents themselves filed no opposition (see NYSCEF 231). Rather, Sandra Abrams later filed a letter in this action, separately from this motion, indicating “Mr[.] Singer has made clear, he is not representing my interests and the consequences are quite clear” (NYSCEF 249, at 6). Mr. Singer’s reply affidavit indicated that Mr. Burke’s Process Agent request was “moot” because an address has been provided for Respondents to receive service by overnight mail (NYSCEF 227, 2). He further argued this would be an extraordinary requirement and should not be granted (id.,
