Germosen v. Hubbard — freecase.ai

Full text

Germosen v. Hubbard

Germosen v Hubbard 2025 NY Slip Op 33032(U) August 6, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 805450/2017 Judge: Judith N. McMahon Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 805450/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JUDITH N. MCMAHON PART 30M Justice -----------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 805450/2017 YESENIA GERMOSEN, NELSON THEN MOTION DATE N/A, N/A Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_06_ 00_7_ _ -v- CHRISTOPHER HUBBARD, MOUNT SINAI BETH ISRAEL, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 95, 96, 97, 98 ATTORNEY- were read on this motion to/for DISQUALIFY/RELIEVE/SUBSTITUTE/WITHDRAW

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 99, 100 were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue

this Court' s July 7, 2025 , decision denying the Redmond Law Firm PLLC's (hereinafter

"Redmond") "renewed· Order to Show Cause (Mot. Seq. No. 006) to withdraw as counsel for

plaintiffs (Mot. Seq. No. 007) is denied.

In a third attempt to be relieved as counsel---and with jury selection scheduled on

September 18, 2025 , in this eight-year-old case---Redmond maintains that this Court

"overlooked material facts , misapprehended controlling legal principles, and failed to consider

significant ethical considerations in its denial of the renewed Order to Show Cause dated July 7,

2025" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. l 00, para. 3).

The chronology relating to Redmond' s motion practice to withdraw as plaintiffs' counsel

(i.e., Mot. Seq. Nos. 003 through 007) is as follows:

805450/2017 GERMOSEN, YESENIA vs. HUBBARD, M.D., CHRISTOPHER Page 1 of s Motion No. 006 007

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:22 PM INDEX NO. 805450/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025

Footnotes

[1] of 5 [* 1] After oral argument on February 3, 2025, this Court denied Redmond's initial Order to ShO\v Cause (Mot. Seq. No. 003) 1 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 76) to withdraw as plaintiffs' counsel, based on several factors, including the impending February I 0, 2025, trial date . That Order to Show Cause was made on the grounds, inter alia, that the attorney-client relationship had deteriorated by way of "irreconcilable views regarding the prosecution of the action"; "plaintiff's improper behavior toward counsel," and "plaintiff's failure to properly cooperate with Redmond Law Firm PLLC" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 67, para. 2). On February 5, 2025, Redmond e-filed correspondence to Hon. Suzanne J. Adams, (presiding in Part 40/trial assignment pai1) requesting "that this case be marked off the trial cal endar·· since the denial of Motion Seq. No. 003 "has required us to redirect significant time and resources to trial preparation .. . " (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 77). Also on February 5, 2025, Redmond filed an Order to Show Cause (Mot. Seq. No. 004) (see NYSCEF Doc. No . 78) to mark this case off the trial calendar of February 10, 2025, and to permit plaintiffs to "restore the action .. . at a later date, upon proper application" once Redmond "'has sufficient avail abi lity to proceed to trial" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 78). On February 6, 2025, Redmond advised this Court that it wished to withdraw the Order to Show Cause (004) marking this case off the trial calendar. Accordingly, this Court issued a short form order directing the Clerk to mark Mot. Seq. No. 004 as ' withdrawn" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 83 ). On February 7, 2025, Redmond moved by Order to Show Cause (Mot. Seq. No. 005), this time in Part 40, for an order "requesting the trial scheduled for February 10, 2025, to be Redmond 's first application to be relieved cited, inter alia, "irreconcilable views concerning prosecution of this action" and "improper behavior towards counsel" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 67, para. 2). 805450/2017 GERMOSEN, YESENIA vs. HUBBARD, M.D., CHRISTOPHER Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 006 007

[2] of 5 [* 2] marked off the calendar" based on the "extensive demands [for preparation] of a trial 2 which had concluded on February 5, 2025" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 85 ; paragraphs 1-3). Mot. Seq. No. 005, signed by Hon. Suzanne Adams, was made returnable in Part 40 on February 10, 2025 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 89). On February 10, 2025, the Hon. Adam Silvera, who was on that date presiding in Part 40, rendered a decision and order denying Mot. Seq. No. 005 and scheduling a Part 40 conference for February 27, 2025 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 91). On July 3, 2025, Redmond filed a "renewed motion" before this Court, by Order to Show Cause (Mot Seq. No. 006) to be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs, and to stay litigation for at least sixty days (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 95), noting that the requested relief was being made "'well in advance of the September 2025 trial date" (id. para. 2). This Court declined to sign Redmond's second Order to Show Cause to be relieved as counsel---since that very relief on the very same grounds was previously denied in Mot. Seq. No. 003---and noted: "This OSC is denied as on 2/3/25 this Court already denied the application by The Redmond Law Firm to withdraw (see doc. # 76 NYSCEF)" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 98). Not to be deterred by two prior court orders denying its application to withdraw from representing plaintiffs on the eve of trial, Redmond now moves by Notice of Motion dated July 21, 2025, for leave to reargue this Cami's denial of its "renewed'' Order to Show Cause (Mot. Seq. No. 006) to withdraw, on the grounds that this Court "overlooked material facts regarding materially changed circumstances and timing concerns, misapprehended controlling legal principes regarding mandatory ethical withdrawal under Rule 1: 16, and failed to consider the This was the trial of an unrelated matter. 805450/2017 GERMOSEN, YESENIA vs. HUBBARD, M.D., CHRISTOPHER Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 006 007

[3] of 5 [* 3] need for an in camera proceeding to protect attorney-client privilege" (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 99). As previously indicated, the motion is denied. A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only upon a showing "that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" (Schneider v Solowey, 141 AD2d 813 [2d Dept. 1988]). Re-argument is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive oppo1tunities to reargue issues previously decided (Pro Brokerage , Inc. v Home Insurance Co., 99 AD2d 971 [I5t Dept. 1984]), or to present arguments different from those originally asserted (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558 [1 st Dept. 1979]). A motion to renew under CPLR 2221 is intended to draw the court' s attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking renewal and therefore not brought to the court's attention (Beiny v Wynward, 132 AD2d

[190] [1 st Dept. 1987]; appeal dismissed, 71 NY2d 994). Here, Redmond's first Order to Show Cause to withdraw as counsel (003) was grounded on the same factors as his second Order to Show Cause (006), and on the same factors as the current Motion to Reargue (007), i.e., "irreconcilable views" between attorney and client/consideration of Rule I: 16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This Court's on the record denial of 003 contemplated more than just the impending trial date of February 10, 2025 . Redmond's "renewal" Order to Show Cause to withdraw, 006, which this Com1 effectively denied by refusing to sign it, was made on the same grounds (i.e., "the attorney-client relationship has deteriorated and adversely impacted the relationship among the parties"' (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 96, para. 3). No new facts were presented warranting renewal of 003 five months after its denial on February 5, 2025. 805450/2017 GERMOSEN, YESENIA vs. HUBBARD, M.D., CHRISTOPHER Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 006 007 4 of 5 [* 4] Accordingly, since Mot. Seq. No. 006 was devoid of "new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were not made known to the party seeking renewal, and therefore, were not known to the court" (see Matter of Shapiro v State of New York, 259 AD2d 753[2d Dept. 1999]), the "renewal" Order to Show Cause was correctly denied. Additionally , this Court did not overlook or misapprehend facts or law to warrant re- argument of denial of the July 7, 2025, Order to Show Cause. It is therefore ORDERED that Mot. Seq. No. 006 is denied; and it is further ORDERED that Mot. Seq. No. 007 is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the parties appear as previously instructed in Part 40 on September 18, 2025 , to commence jury selection. 8/6/2025 DATE ~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DlSPO ITION GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION : SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE Ho,., ••.. JUDITH .IVlcMAHoN J.s.c. 805450/2017 GERMOSEN, YESENIA vs. HUBBARD, M.D., CHRISTOPHER Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 006 007 5 of 5 [* 5]