New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
ZEPH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2020-045-040, Claim No. 124037, Motion No. M-95311

Synopsis

Out of state attorney applies for pro hac vice admission to New York for the purposes of this case.

Case information

UID: 2020-045-040
Claimant(s): HUBERT ZEPH AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTA ZEPH
Claimant short name: ZEPH
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 124037
Motion number(s): M-95311
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Gina M. Lopez-Summa
Claimant's attorney: Sheff Law Offices, P.C.
By: Donald R. Grady, Esq.
Defendant's attorney: Bartlett, LLP
By: John Yoon, Esq.
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: July 7, 2020
City: Hauppauge
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant's Notice of Motion and Attorney's Affidavit in Support.

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an order permitting Chase A. Marshall, Esq., a member in good standing of the courts of Massachusetts, to appear pro hac vice on its behalf in this action. Defendant does not oppose the motion.

Section 520.11 (a) (1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals permits any court of record, in its discretion, to permit an attorney from another jurisdiction to appear in any matter before it pro hac vice.

In support of its application, claimant submitted an affidavit of Chase A Marshall, Esq. in which Mr Marshall attested to his fitness and good standing as a member of the Massachusetts bar. Mr. Marshall continued that he will be associated with counsel who is duly licensed and in good standing with the New York State bar (22 NYCRR 520.11 [c]). Mr. Marshall also stated that he will be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and comply with its rules of practice, including the rules governing the conduct of attorneys and the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 520.11 [e]). Additionally the Court finds that pro hac vice admission would not adversely affect judicial efficiency or the court's control of its courtroom and calendar (Perkins v Elbilia, 90 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2011]; Giannotti v Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLC, 20 AD3d 389 [2d Dept 2005]).

Based upon the foregoing, claimant's motion is granted and pursuant to the Rules of the Court of Appeals Section 520.11 (a), Chase A. Marshall Esq., is hereby admitted pro hac vice to participate in the representation of claimant in the above referenced claim.

July 7, 2020

Hauppauge, New York

Gina M. Lopez-Summa

Judge of the Court of Claims