Opinion
April 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
The request to withdraw was properly granted, there being more than adequate evidence to show that defendant's insistence that his attorneys advance claims that they believe to be ethically and legally unjustified has caused a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 [A] [2], 22 NYCRR 1200.33 [a] [2]; Sansiviero v Sanders, 117 A.D.2d 794, lv dismissed 68 N.Y.2d 805; Solomon v Solomon, 172 A.D.2d 1081). A hearing was not necessary in connection with the motion to withdraw since no material issues of fact were raised (People v Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214, 215).
Plaintiff's attorneys were properly appointed as the sole escrowee of the fund to which both parties lay claim, given the withdrawal of defendant's attorneys, since no money from the fund may be withdrawn without further court order, and since no substantive changes have been made to the order that created the escrow fund. While defendant, himself an attorney, claims that he was under a "legal disability" in not being able to oppose the cross-motion to appoint plaintiff's counsel as sole escrowee, in fact he opposed the motion by submitting opposition papers, and indeed has represented himself during much of the litigation.
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be without merit in the circumstances present.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.