Wasserman v. City of Long Beach, NY et al
| New York Eastern District Court | |
| Judge: | Joanna Seybert |
| Referred: | James M Wicks |
| Case #: | 2:21-cv-02466 |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Cause | 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| Case Filed: | May 03, 2021 |
| Last checked: Saturday Oct 30, 2021 5:28 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
City of Long Beach, NY
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Donna M. Gayden
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Michael S. Wasserman
|
Represented By
|
| TERMINATED PARTIES | |
|
Defendant
Richard Berrios
Terminated: 10/02/2021
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
City of Long Beach Police Department
Terminated: 10/02/2021
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Simone M. Freeman
Terminated: 05/06/2021
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
John Doe Police Officers 1-4
Terminated: 10/02/2021
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Brian Vais
Terminated: 10/02/2021
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Ronald Walsh
Terminated: 10/02/2021
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 04/25/2025 11:59 PM EDT |
| Tuesday, March 11, 2025 | ||
|
order
Order(Other)
Tue 03/11 4:22 PM
ORDER. In light of the Order dated March 4, 2025, outgoing counsel, Mr. Feraru, was directed to serve a copy of the Order granting68 Motion to Withdraw upon Plaintiff and file proof of service on ECF within three business days which he has failed to do. Accordingly, Mr. Feraru shall serve a copy of the March 4, 2025 Order onto Plaintiff and file proof of service on ECF on or before March 14, 2025. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 3/11/2025. (JDP) |
||
| Tuesday, March 04, 2025 | ||
|
order
Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
Tue 03/04 4:00 PM
ORDER granting68 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Local Rule 1.4 provides that "[a]n attorney who has appeared as attorney of record for a party may be relieved or displaced only by order of the Court" and that "[s]uch an order may be granted only upon a showing by affidavit or otherwise of satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement." Further, Rule 1.16(b)(2) of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct mandates that an attorney "shall" withdraw from representation when "the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client." Calletti v. Qianyu , No. 14-CV-5358, 2016 WL 3198249, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2016). Indeed, where an attorney suffers from a physical or mental condition that impairs his ability to represent his client, "it [is] incumbent upon him to provide prompt and appropriate notification and, if necessary, to withdraw his representation." Martin v. Giordano , 185 F. Supp. 3d 339, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing NYRPC Rule 1.16(b)(2)). The Rule makes clear that "if an illness interferes or potentially interferes with counsel's competence, diligence, and effective representation of a client," the attorney must communicate with either opposing counsel or the court to apprise them of the serious nature of his medical condition. Carcello v. TJX Companies, Inc. , 192 F.R.D. 61, 65 (D. Conn. 2000); see Giordano , 185 F. Supp. 3d at 364 (collecting cases where an attorney must notify the court of such illness before withdrawing). Here, counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. Feraru, is requesting withdrawal as counsel of record for Plaintiff due to his health conditions and "significant, life-threatening, health issues that have required [him] to perform the requisite steps to take a medical leave of absence." (ECF No. 68 at p. 1.) Mr. Feraru has communicated this condition to the Court through email correspondence with Chambers, at conferences held before the undersigned ( see Electronic Order dated 1/7/2025), and in recent letters to the Court. ( See ECF No. 67). Accordingly, Mr. Feraru has established satisfactory reasons for his withdrawal in this matter and that such withdrawal is mandatory under NY Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(2). Moreover, Mr. Feraru requests that "any and all proceedings in this matter be stayed for sixty (60) days to allow Plaintiff to retain alternative counsel." (ECF No. 68 at p. 1.) Courts often find it appropriate to grant a short stay in order to alleviate any possible prejudice to the client whose counsel is withdrawing and allow the client time to find new counsel. Bueno v. Allcity Med., P.C. , No. 22-CV-02216 (JGLC) (KHP), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186121, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2023). To prevent prejudice to Plaintiff, all proceedings in this case are stayed until May 5, 2025 , so that Plaintiff may have the opportunity to retain substitute counsel. The parties shall appear for an in-person Status Conference on May 19, 2025 at 1:00PM before the undersigned in Courtroom 1020, with Plaintiff appearing either pro se , or through newly retained counsel. Outgoing counsel, Mr. Feraru, is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff and file proof of service on ECF within three business days . So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 3/4/2025. (JDP) |
||