Court Opinion

ID: 9929963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:07:29.948647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:58:06.333971
License: Public Domain

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,
            139
            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
                                                         0
                                                                                                   □
                                         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