Court Grants Counsel’s Motion To Withdraw But Declines To Stay the Action

Posted: September 30, 2026 / Written by: Channing J. Turner / Categories Court Rules/Procedures, Commercial

Court Grants Counsel’s Motion To Withdraw But Declines To Stay the Action

On August 20, 2026, in A & L 444 LLC v. Ankura Trust Co., LLC, Index No. 653212/2023, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted plaintiffs’ counsel leave to withdraw and denied counsel’s request for a stay of the proceedings while its clients sought new counsel. Baker Hostetler LLP moved under C.P.L.R. 321(b)(2) to be relieved as counsel for plaintiffs, stating that its clients had failed to satisfy outstanding legal fees and to comply with agreed payment arrangements. Counsel also asked the court to stay the matter so that plaintiffs could find replacement counsel. Defendants opposed the stay, arguing that it would delay resolution and prejudice them, and pointing to plaintiffs’ alleged violations of multiple court-ordered discovery deadlines. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to their attorneys’ motion.

The court observed that a stay following an attorney’s withdrawal is automatic under C.P.L.R. 321(c) only on the death, removal, or disability of the attorney, and that where the withdrawal is caused by the client’s own voluntary act the courts routinely exercise their discretion to deny a stay. Granting the motion to withdraw but refusing to halt the case, the Court explained:

[I]t is this court’s view that a stay of the action is not warranted. Some evidence seems to exist to substantiate defendants’ claim of frustration of the discovery process, and the instant application is based upon plaintiffs’ alleged refusal to pay counsels’ bills. Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to their attorneys’ request to withdraw; therefore, this court does not find that compelling reasons exist to impose a stay on this action. 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 (Shurka v Shurka, 955 NYS2d 12, 13 [1st Dept 2012] citing, Sarlo-Pinzur v Pinzur, 59 AD3d 607, 608 [2d Dept 2009]). Counsel’s application to withdraw is granted, but discovery in this matter, and argument on all outstanding motions shall proceed, forthwith.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning the withdrawal of counsel and stays of litigation under C.P.L.R. 321.

To read more about what happens to a case after counsel is relieved, see Schlam Stone & Dolan’s related Commercial Division Blog posts on a decision holding that the mandatory stay of C.P.L.R. 321(c) barred the motion court from deciding a summary judgment motion against a party whose attorney had been relieved and a decision holding that a client’s refusal to pay undisputed legal fees was itself sufficient ground to relieve counsel.