WITHDRAWAL REQUEST FAILED TO SET FORTH A “GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE”
In a mortgage foreclosure case, when the attorneys for the mortgagor sought to withdraw from the litigation, and the Richmond County Supreme Court opted to deny that request, the lawyers appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
On its review of the matter, the AD2 first noted that such applications are typically left to a trial court’s discretion and will only be reversed when a determination is "improvidently" made. Additionally, an attorney is required to show “good and sufficient cause” for the withdrawal – like when a client refuses to pay the attorney’s legal fees and charges.
Because the underlying application didn’t meet the governing requirements – that is, the lawyers didn’t show a refusal to pay or that the client failed to cooperate with counsel – the AD2 thought that the court below had “providently” denied the withdrawal request, particularly given the “procedural posture of the case.”
Was that a matter of providence?
# # #