Lee v. Nejat

Lee v Nejat 2024 NY Slip Op 30356(U) January 30, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 800296/2011 Judge: Erika M. Edwards 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.

INDEX NO. 800296/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ERIKA M. EDWARDS PART 10M Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 800296/2011 SUSAN S. LEE , MOTION DATE 1/04/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 013 - V - MORRIS NEJAT, M.D., F.A.A.P., Individually, d/b/a NEW YORK ALLERGY & SINUS GROUP, PLLC. , NEW YORK DECISION + ORDER ON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER , and NEW YORK- MOTION PRESBYTERIAN WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 135, 136, 137, 138, were read on this motion to/for REARGUE Upon the foregoing documents, the court denies prose Plaintiff Susan Lee's (" Plaintiff') motion to reargue the court 's Decision and O rder, dated October 31 , 2023, which was entered on November 2 1, 2023, and fil ed under NYSCEF Doc. No . 132, where the court granted Plaintiff's counsel Sal Spano, Esq. of Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC ' s ("the Firm") motion to withdraw from its representation of Plaintiff fil ed under motion sequence 0 12.

In its Decision and Order, the court granted the Firm 's motion to be relieved as Plaintiff' s counsel, the com1 stayed the matter until January 4, 2024, for Plaintiff to advise the court whether she wishes to appoint new counsel , proceed prose, or discontinue the action against the defendants. T he court also determined that Plaintiff s discharge of the Firm was not for cause sufficient to preclude the Firm' s request for a charging lien and retaining lien on its fil e.

Therefore, the court granted the Firm's request for a charging lien in an amount to be determined at the completion of this matter should it result in a favorable outcome to Pla intiff and a retaining

800296/2011 LEE, SUSAN v. NEJAT, MORRIS Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 013

[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 800296/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024 lien on Plaintiff's file in the am ount of $20,96 1.62, which must be paid or secured prior to the Firm 's release of the fil e.

Plaintiff now moves fo r reargument and upon reargument seeks an o rder denying the portions of the motio n seeking a charging lien and retaining lien. Plaintiff argues in substance that the court overlooked M r. Spano' s fa ilure to address the specific factual allegatio ns that Plainti ff raised in her partial opposition to the motio n and the court misapplied the law governing the nature of the ty pe of conduct that e ntitles a client to d ischarge an attorney for cause.

There was no o pposition to Plaintiff' s motion to rearg ue.

Pursuant to C PLR 222 1(d )(2), a motion for leave to reargue is left to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only where the moving party contends that an issue of law or fact had been overlooked or m isapprehended by the court when decid ing the orig ina l motion (CPLR 222 1[d][2]). It is not designed to provide the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided by the court or to present new evidence or di fferent arguments than previo usly raised (William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1 st Dept 1992] [internal citatio ns and quotation marks omi tted]; Seiters v Al Props. & Devs. (USA) Corp. , 139 A D3d 492,492 [1 st Dept 20 16]).

The court denies Plaintiff's motion to reargue and finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended an issue of fact or law in deciding the previous motion. The court cons idered all of the arguments raised by the parties and fo und that Plainti ff's argume nts were insuffic ient to rise to the leve l of a for cause termination.

Additionally, the court considered the controlling autho rity and granted the motion. Therefore, the court was unpersuaded by Pl aintiff's arguments in oppositio n to both liens.

80029€/2011 LEE, SUSAN v. NEJAT, MORRIS Pc1ge 2 of 4 Motion No. 013

[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 800296/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

Now, Plaintiff raises some new arguments and repeats some of the same arguments raised in the previous motion. Neither is permissible on a motion to reargue.

Additionally, the court mentioned that it " has considered any additional arguments raised by the .parties which were not specifically discussed herein and the cou11 denies any additional requests for relief which were not expressly granted herein." Thus, the court acknowledged that although it did not specifically discuss each and every argument raised by the parties, it considered them. Therefore, it is clear that the court considered Plaintiff's arguments on the issues raised in the previous motion, but the court rejected them outright and granted the motion.

Although the court understands Plaintiff' s dilemma and that a retaining lien can be a heavy burden and deterrence in retaining new counsel, the court found that outgoing counsel was entitled to it. The court declines to provide Plaintiff with any further explanation in support of its previous decision.

Again, the court has considered all arguments raised by Plaintiff in the instant motion, which may not have been specifically discussed herein and the court deni~s the instant motion.

As such, it is hereby ORDERED that the court denies Plaintiff Susan Lee's m otion to reargue the court' s Decision and O rder, dated October 31, 2023, which was entered on November 2 1, 2023, and filed under NYSCEF Doc. No . 132; and it is further ORDERED that the stay in this matter is extended until thirty (30) days f1:om the date of entry of this Decision and Order.

800296/2011 LEE, SUSAN v. NEJAT, MORRIS Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 013

[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 800296/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

1/30/2024 DATE

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED ~ NON-FINAL O<SPosor,oN □ GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTH=R APPLICATION : SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE : INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

800296/2011 LEE, SUSAN v . NEJAT, MORRIS Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 013

[* 4] 4 of 4