Vernon Anthony Jr Rose, Plaintiff, v. NFI TRUCKS II INC (2026)

The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on these motions:

By Plaintiff (movant): Doc Nos. 63-72, 81-85.

By Defendants (in opposition): Doc Nos. 74-79.

Additionally, the Court considered NYSCEF Doc Nos. 38-40, 45, 57, 61-62, 73.

Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument, and due deliberation having been had, the within motions are determined as follows.

Background

Motion Sequence No. 3 is Plaintiff's motion to admit Joseph S. Farzam, Esq., pro hac vice. Motion Sequence No. 4 is Plaintiff's motion to admit Larry Strauss, Esq., pro hac vice.

On November 17, 2023, Defendant Kevin Guzman was operating a Freightliner motor vehicle, owned by Defendant NF. Trucks II Inc., on Myrtle Avenue near Washington Park, in Brooklyn. He collided with a pedestrian, Plaintiff Vernon Rose. Plaintiff alleges that the collision was due solely to the negligence of Defendants and that Plaintiff suffered serious injury as a result.

Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiff argues that Farzam and Strauss should be admitted pro hac vice because they possess the necessary qualifications under Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 520.11). Both Farzam and Strauss are licensed to practice law in California and Florida, respectively; they have each been practicing law for over five years in their respective jurisdictions; and they have never been disciplined nor disbarred. Farzam and Strauss have both averred they will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York for any acts occurring during the course of their representation in this matter. No prior application for this relief has been made.

Defendants' Contentions

Defendants argue that admission pro hac vice should be denied because the delays in communication regarding a change of representation indicate Plaintiff's intention to use the foregoing motions as "delay tactics." Defendants further contend that these delays prejudice the defense by hindering its ability to defend in this action. Defendants assert that there is no other reason given for the pro hac vice admission of Farzam and Strauss.

Defendants cite the following communication delays: On or about April 8, 2025, Plaintiff Vernon Anthony Jr Rose and the Joseph Farzam Law Firm, based in California, informed Raytsin Law Firm, P.C., Plaintiff's former counsel, that Plaintiff had retained the Farzam Law Firm to represent him in this action. However, Raytsin Law did not inform the defense of the switch; the defense only found out independently on May 5, 2025. Raytsin Law Firm, P.C. later filed a letter with the Court on August 15, 2025, urging Farzam Law to enter their appearance (see NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 39); however, Farzam Law never did. Not until January 28, 2026, did Raytsin Law Firm, P.C. file an application with the Court to be relieved as counsel (see NYSCEF Doc No. 45). On March 5, 2026, a consent to change attorney stating that Paykin Law (apparently formally known as The Law Office of Alexander Paykin, P.C.), based in New York and intending to serve as local counsel of record for Farzam Law, replaced Raytsin Law Firm, P.C. was filed (see NYSCEF Doc No. 57). However, the document was dated November 20, 2025, which Defendant argues is evidence of delay. Furthermore, when this notice of substitution was filed by Paykin Law, a motion for Raytsin Law Firm, P.C. (Motion Sequence No. 2, filed January 28, 2026) to be relieved was still pending. On March 20, 2026, Raytsin Law Firm, P.C.'s motion to be relieved was denied by the Court because Raytsin Law Firm, P.C. failed to bring the motion by order to show cause (see NYSCEF Doc No. 61).

Additionally, Defendants complain that four discovery demands filed in 2025 had still not been met by Plaintiff as of March 20, 2026, despite multiple good faith letters (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 38, 40, 62) informing Plaintiff about the unfulfilled discovery demands. Defendants argue that the delayed response to discovery demands is further indication that the Plaintiff is using the motions herein to delay the trial.

Plaintiff's Reply Contentions

Plaintiff argues that Defendants' discovery complaints have nothing to do with admission pro hac vice, and that each motion stands independently and should be evaluated as such. Even considering the discovery complaints, a compliance order resolving discovery complaints already was granted and signed by Plaintiff's counsel on May 13, 2026 (see NYSCEF Doc No. 73).

Discussion

I. Relevant Rules

Pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals, any court has the discretion to admit an attorney pro hac vice in any matter in which the attorney is employed if the attorney meets the following requirements: (a) The attorney pro hac vice must be a member in good standing in the bar of another state, territory, district, or foreign country (see 22 NYCRR 520.11 [a]); (b) The attorney pro hac vice must be "associated with an attorney who is a member in good standing of the New York bar, who shall be the attorney of record in the matter" (id. 520.11 [c]); and (c) The attorney pro hac vice "(1) shall be familiar with and shall comply with the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York bar, including the rules of court governing the conduct of attorneys and the Rules of Professional Conduct; and (2) shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State with respect to any acts occurring during the course of the attorney's participation in the matter" (id. 520.11 [e] [1], [2]).

Additionally, Section 690.3 of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, provides in subdivision (a): "For a particular cause. An attorney and counselor at law, or the equivalent from another state, territory, district or foreign country, may be admitted pro hac vice to participate in the trial or argument of a particular cause in which the attorney may be employed, upon application to and in the discretion of the court in which the cause is pending" (22 NYCRR 602.2 [a]).

Farzam and Strauss meet all the above requirements, with Alexander Paykin, Esq. qualifying as the local counsel for them (see 22 NYCRR 520.11 [c]). Attorneys Farzam and Strauss are in good standing as bar members in their respective home states (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 66, 71). Both affirmed a commitment to comply fully with the standards of professional conduct to which members of the New York State bar are held, including the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and the Civil Practice Law and Rules (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 65, 70).

II. Case Law

In Neal v Ecolab Inc. (252 AD2d 716 [3d Dept 1998]), a motion for admission pro hac vice was filed two and one half years after the action was commenced. There was a failure to communicate the motion by the attorneys, and the motion was filed only two weeks before trial. The Court ruled that the delay and disruptive effect therefrom went against the Supreme Court's interest in judicial efficiency.

In Gianotti v Mercedez Benz U.S.A., LLC (20 AD3d 389 [2d Dept 2005]), the Court ruled that the effect of admissions pro hac vice must be balanced with the preference in the State of New York for allowing parties to choose their representative counsel.

In the case at hand, the motions for admission pro hac vice were filed about two years after the action was commenced, and the Court was first notified of the process of switching attorneys a little more than a year after the action was commenced: a timeline comparable to that in Neal. However, the key distinction between this case and Neal is that these motions for admission pro hac vice were not filed on the eve of trial as was done in Neal; this trial is not scheduled yet. As such, this motion will not significantly delay the Court's calendar. Looking to Gianotti, the preference for allowing parties to choose their representative counsel thus outweighs any concerns about preserving judicial efficiency in this case. Admitting attorneys pro hac vice certainly has nothing to do with the delay in providing discovery, despite Defendants' protestations.

Conclusion

With respect to Motion Sequence No. 3, it is now therefore:

(1) ORDERED that the motion is granted, and Joseph S. Farzam is permitted to appear and to participate in this action on behalf of Plaintiff; and it is further

(2) ORDERED that at all times he shall be associated with counsel who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the parties in question, and all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the Court shall be signed and filed by the attorney of record, who shall be held responsible for such papers and for the conduct of this action; and it is further

(3) ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals and Section 602.2 of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the attorney hereby admitted pro hac vice shall abide by the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York Bar, including the Rules of the Courts governing the conduct of attorneys and the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and it is further

(4) ORDERED that counsel shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of his participation in this matter; and it is further

(5) ORDERED that counsel shall notify the Court immediately of any matter or event in this or any other jurisdiction which affects his standing as a member of the Bar.

With respect to Motion Sequence No. 4, it is now therefore:

(1) ORDERED that the motion is granted, and Larry Strauss is permitted to appear and to participate in this action on behalf of Plaintiff; and it is further

(2) ORDERED that at all times he shall be associated with counsel who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New York and is attorney of record for the parties in question, and all pleadings, briefs and other papers filed with the Court shall be signed and filed by the attorney of record, who shall be held responsible for such papers and for the conduct of this action; and it is further

(3) ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals and Section 602.2 of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department, the attorney hereby admitted pro hac vice shall abide by the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York Bar, including the Rules of the Courts governing the conduct of attorneys and the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and it is further

(4) ORDERED that counsel shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York with respect to any acts occurring during the course of his participation in this matter; and it is further

(5) ORDERED that counsel shall notify the Court immediately of any matter or event in this or any other jurisdiction which affects his standing as a member of the Bar.

Aaron D. Maslow, J.