On August 20, 2026, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in A & L 444 LLC v. Ankura Trust Co., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 51347(U), declining to grant a stay in connection with the withdrawal of counsel, explaining:
CPLR 321 (b) (2) provides:
an 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. 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. An attorney may be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable legal fees.
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. Where the withdrawal is caused by the client’s voluntary actions, the courts routinely exercise their discretion to deny a stay of proceedings.
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 a pattern of intentional delay of the litigation process. 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.
Here, attorneys Sheynker and Cotton submit sufficient evidence, by way of attorney affirmation, of a failure by the clients to fulfill their obligations under the fee agreements entered into with their attorneys of record. A party’s failure to pay fees is sufficient grounds to grant leave to withdraw. However, it 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. Counsel’s application to withdraw is granted, but discovery in this matter, and argument on all outstanding motions shall proceed, forthwith.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
The post Court Declines to Grant a Stay in Connection With the Withdrawal of Counsel appeared first on Lundin PLLC.