On February 27, 2025, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Concordance Healthcare Solutions LLC v. Kori Capital Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 50257(U), denying a motion to withdraw because the application lacked sufficient detail, explaining:
Here, the court does not find adequate grounds to grant counsel’s withdrawal. It is not clear to this court who counsel currently represents and what attorney/client relationship she seeks to terminate. No representation is recorded on the court docket for defendant Hsiao Chen. The New York Courts Electronic Filing System indicates that counsel only represents defendant Kori Capital Inc, yet, in her application, counsel affirms that she seeks to relieve her Firm as counsel for Hsiao Chen. Further, at every court conference, counsel has only represented the interests of Kori Capital, and has not, at any appearance or in any court filings, indicated that she is appearing on behalf of defendant Hsiao Chen.
Therefore, the issuance of an order granting counsel’s withdrawal and relieving her firm of its representation of defendant Chen does not appear to this court to be proper given the discrepancies in the record and general lack of proof that counsel ever represented Hsiao Chen’s legal interests. 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. Counsel’s request, therefore, is denied, without prejudice.
(Internal citations omitted).