Carol Gardens Hous. Co. v Harrell
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 14, 2017
Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County
Carol Gardens Housing Co., Plaintiff
against
Denetra Harrell, Defendant.
CV -14076/16
ROBERT E. JUDGE, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
131 Lawrence Street - 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
718.875.5802
DENETRA HARRELL
Defendant
10 Ormian Drive
Pomona, New York 10970
BRIAN D. THOMAS
Former Attorney for Respondent
557 Grand Concourse, No.154
Bronx, New York 10451
646.353.8160
Sabrina B. Kraus, J.
BACKGROUND
This action was commenced by CAROL GARDENS HOUSING CO.(Plaintiff) against DENETRA HARRELL(Defendant) seeking a judgment in the amount of $9281.65, together with cots and interest, based on the allegation that Defendant failed to pay rent for Apartment 14F, at 820 Thieriot Avenue,, Bronx, New York (Subject Premises), due pursuant to a written lease agreement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The summons and complaint were filed on December 20, 2016. The affidavit of service
was filed on February 2, 2017, and asserts substituted service on Ivan Flower, Defendant's alleged fiancé, at 10 Ormian Drive, Pomona, NY on January 18, 2017, at 8:15 a.m.
Defendant appeared pro se and filed an answer on February 1, 2017, disputing the amount of the debt, asserting unjust enrichment, violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, and laches.
An initial court date was set for March 3, 2017. On that date, Brian D. Thomas, Esq.,(Thomas) appeared on behalf of Defendant. The action was removed from the Part 11 calendar, as both sides were represented by counsel.
On July 6, 2017, Plaintiff, filed a Notice of Trial and Certificate of Readiness. The action was calendared for September 13, 2017, in Part 15.
On September 13, 2017, the action was adjourned to November 13, 2017, for trial.
On November 13, 2017, neither Defendant, nor Thomas, appeared and the action was adjourned to December 12, 2017 pursuant to a notation on the court file that a post card would be sent to both Defendant and Thomas.
On December 12, 2017, this Court presided over the matter for the first time. Once again, neither Defendant, nor Thomas appeared. However, upon review of the file, the Court noted that Thomas had previously filed a document labeled "Affirmation of Prior Engagement & Request for 30 Day Adjournment of this Matter." The document is undated, but presumably was submitted in regards to the November 13, 2017 trial date whjere Defendant and Thomas had defaulted in appearing. The affirmation stated:
Please adjourn all my court cases 30 days as I am engaged in a matter in Supreme Court, First Department, which I hope to have resolved shortly.
Please adjourn to December 14, 2017.
I will advise opposing counsel/party via cell phone and/or text
It is signed by Thomas.
The Court takes judicial notice of an order dated October 26, 2017, pursuant to which Thomas was suspended from the practice of law effective immediately and until further notice of the court [In re Thomas, — NYS3d — (2017), 2017 NY Slip Op. 07544].
22 NYCRR § 1240.15 (b) regarding the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters provides in pertinent part:
Notification of Clients. Within 10 days of the date of entry of an order of suspension ... the affected respondent shall notify, by certified mail and, where practical, electronic mail, each client of the respondent, the attorney for each party in any pending matter, the court in any pending matter, and the Office of Court Administration for each action where a retainer statement has been filed pursuant to court rules. The notice shall state that the respondent is unable to act as counsel due to disbarment or suspension. A notice to a respondent's client shall advise the client to obtain new counsel. A notice to counsel for a party in a pending action, or to the Office of Court Administration in connection with an [*2]action where a retainer statement has been filed pursuant to court rule, shall include the name and address of the respondent's client.This is the third action [FN1] , before this Court, wherein Thomas has filed similar "affirmations of engagement."
Pursuant to § 1240.15 (b), Thomas was required to notify Defendant, opposing counsel, and the court of his suspension within ten days of entry of the order. Thomas should have provided in said notice that he was unable to continue as Defendant's attorney based on his suspension, and advise Defendant to hire a new attorney .
There is no indication that Thomas notified Defendant about his suspension.
The court finds the document filed by Thomas inappropriate as it seeks for him to stay on as counsel and adjourn the action, without acknowledging that he is ineligible to remain on as counsel.
Based on the foregoing, Thomas' application to adjourn the action is denied.
However, in accordance with CPLR §321 ( c) the action is stayed for thirty days, and adjourned to February 28, 2018, at 9:30 am in room 503 to afford Defendant an opportunity to hire a new lawyer, or to give Defendant an opportunity to appear in court in person on that date.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: December 14, 2017
Bronx, New York
Hon. Sabrina B. Kraus JCC Footnotes
Footnote 1:This Court has issued the same order in two prior proceedings under index 901374/16 and 901491/17
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
