Computershare Trust Co., N.A. v Cohen

Supreme Court, New York County

Decided on May 14, 2026

Index No. 653411/2025

Robert R. Reed, J.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 were read on this motion for ATTORNEY - DISQUALIFY/RELIEVE/SUBSTITUTE/WITHDRAW.

In motion sequence 002, attorney Leo Jacobs, managing partner of Jacobs P.C., attorney of record for defendant Abe Cohen, moves to be relieved as counsel for defendant.

Attorney Jacobs submits an affirmation dated January 6, 2026 where he affirms, under penalty of perjury, that withdrawal of his representation of defendant is warranted due to a breakdown of the attorney/client relationship (NYSCEF doc. no. 22). The breakdown, attorney Jacobs submits, involves the nonpayment of fees and "other professional considerations" (id.).

Plaintiff Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of BMO 2023-C6 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2023-C6, submits opposition to counsel's request, limited to the question of whether a stay should be imposed in this action (NYSCEF doc. no. 25). Attorney Jacobs does not request that a stay be imposed in this action, but counsel for plaintiff, nonetheless, submits that the imposition of a stay is not warranted. According to plaintiff, defendant's attorney withdrawal is caused by defendant's failure to pay counsel, a voluntary act, which doesn't require or warrant the imposition of a stay. Further, plaintiff argues that a stay of this action would be unduly prejudicial and unfairly delay the resolution of this action (id.).

CPLR 321 (b) (2) provides:

"[a]n 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."

If an attorney deems it necessary to end the attorney-client relationship without the consent of the client, the attorney may move on such notice as may be directed by the court, to be relieved as counsel by court order (Farage v Ehrenberg, 124 AD3d 159 [2nd Dept 2014]). "The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the court's decision should not be overturned absent a showing of an improvident exercise of discretion" (Applebaum v Einstein, 163 AD3d 905, 907 [1st Dept 2018]). Here, attorney Jacobs submits sufficient evidence, by way of attorney affirmation, of a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship sufficient to warrant withdrawal. A party's failure to pay fees and communicate and cooperate with its attorney are sufficient grounds to grant leave to withdraw (id.).

A stay of an action following an attorney withdrawal is only automatic under CPLR 321(c) on account of the death, removal or disability of an attorney (Transasia Commodities Inv. Ltd. . NewLead JMEG, LLC, 169 AD3d 591, 592 [1st Dept 2019]). The court may decline to impose a stay where the court determines from the conduct of the parties that there has been a demonstrated pattern of willful noncompliance with court orders and an a pattern of intentional delay of the litigation process (id.). Also, with respect to any claim of an inability to pay legal fees, the court may discount such claim in the absence of substantiation via financial records, and where the past conduct of a party evidences an intentional frustration of discovery and an intent to delay the litigation process (id.).

In this case, there has been no evidence of delay, willful or contumacious conduct by defendant and no evidence of substantiation of defendant's inability to pay legal fees. Nevertheless, given, first, that the application is based upon defendant's alleged refusal to pay his counsel's bills for services rendered; second, that counsel has failed to request the imposition of a stay in the instant application; and, third, that defendant has failed to oppose his attorney's request to withdraw, this court finds that the imposition of a stay is not warranted under these circumstances (Shurka v Shurka, 955 NYS2d 12, 13 [1st Dept 2012] citing, Sarlo-Pinzur v Pinzur, 59 AD3d 607, 608 [2d Dept 2009][where the attorney's withdrawal is caused by a voluntary act of the client, the court has the discretion to permit the matter to proceed without such a stay]).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion of Leo Jacobs, Esq. to be relieved as counsel for defendant Abe Cohen (mot. seq. no. 002) is granted, upon filing of proof of compliance with the following conditions; and it is further

ORDERED that, within 10 days from entry, said attorney shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon the former client at his last known address by certified mail, return receipt requested, and upon the attorneys for all other parties appearing herein by filing on the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System; and it is further

ORDERED that, together with the copy of this order with notice of entry served upon the former client, moving counsel shall forward a notice directing the former client to appoint a [*2]substitute attorney within 30 days from the date of the mailing of the notice and the client shall comply therewith, except that, in the event defendant Abe Cohen intends instead to represent himself, he shall notify the Clerk of the Part of this decision in writing within said 30-day period; and it is further

ORDERED that any new attorney retained by defendant shall file a notice of appearance with the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office and the Clerk of the Part within 40 days from the date the notice to retain new counsel is mailed; and it is further

ORDERED that the departing attorney shall, within 10 days from entry, serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office; and it is further

ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, the filing of a notice of appearance as provided herein, and the filing of papers as aforesaid shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website); and it is further

ORDERED that all parties shall appear for a virtual preliminary conference on August 4, 2026 11:00 am.

DATE May 14, 2026

ROBERT R. REED, J.S.C.