Recitation in accordance with CPLR 2219 of the papers considered on the notice of motion filed on August 1, 2024, under motion sequence number seven, by plaintiff Jonathan Dorman for an order pursuant to Section 520.11 of the Rules of the New York State Court of Appeals, granting his application for admission pro hac vice to appear and participate as co-counsel to Nader Mobargha, Esq., the plaintiffs' attorney of record, on his behalf in the above-captioned case. The motion is opposed.

Exhibits A

Exhibits A-J

Exhibits A-B

On October 19, 2020, Jonathan Dorman and Merrill Stubbs Dorman (hereinafter the plaintiffs) commenced the instant action by filing a summons and complaint with the Kings County Clerk's office (KCCO).

On December 21, 2020, defendants Ben Herzog Architect, P.C., and Ben Herzog (hereinafter the Herzog defendants) interposed and filed a verified answer with the KCCO.

On January 11, 2021, the Herzog defendants interposed and filed an amended verified answer with cross claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims with the KCCO.

On January 18, 2021, the plaintiffs interposed and filed a reply to the counterclaims alleged in the amended verified answer of the Herzog defendants with the KCCO.

On January 25, 2021, co-defendants LuVa of New York, LLC, Waldek Dec and Andrew Pasek (hereinafter collectively the LuVa defendants) interposed and filed a verified answer with counterclaims and cross claims against the Herzog defendants.

The complaint alleges one hundred and fifteen allegations of fact in support of eight denominated causes of action. The first cause of action is asserted against LuVa of New York LLC for breach of a renovation contract. The second cause of action is also asserted against LuVa of New York LLC for breach of contract relating to facade restoration work. The third cause of action is against all the LuVa defendants for fraud in the inducement. The fourth cause of action is against all the LuVa defendants for fraud in the inducement on the contract relating to the facade restoration work. The fifth cause of action is against the Herzog defendants for negligence. The sixth cause of action is against the Herzog defendants for professional malpractice. The seventh cause of action is against LuVa of New York LLC for quantum meruit. The eighth cause of action is against LuVa of New York LLC for unjust enrichment.

By the instant action plaintiffs seek to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, negligence, professional malpractice, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment they allegedly suffered at a renovation project on their property located at 428 6th Street, Brooklyn New York, 11215. The plaintiffs Johnathan Dorman and Merrill Stubbs Dorman [*2]allege that they suffered monetary damages from faulty and incomplete renovation work performed by the defendants LuVa of NY, LLC, Waldek Dec, Andrew Pasek Ben Herzog Architect, P.C. and Ben Herzog.

In support of the motion, Jonathan Dorman submitted a notice of motion, his own affirmation in support, an affirmation of Nader Mobargha (hereinafter Mobargha), a certificate of good standing from the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and a proposed order.

The affirmation of Mobargha avers that plaintiff Jonathan Dorman is a competent attorney and practitioner, a member in good standing of the Bar of New Jersey, and that Jonathan Dorman he is associated with the Law Offices of Jonathan I. Dorman, LLC in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Jonathan Dorman's affirmation avers, inter alia, that he is a member in good standing of the New Jersey bars, that he has never been disciplined or sanctioned by any court and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him, that he is familiar with the standards of professional conduct imposed upon members of the New York Bar, including the Rules of Professional Conduct, and that he would fully adhere to all rules applicable to his conduct in connection with any activities in this Court.

In opposition to the motion, the Herzog defendants submit, a memorandum of law, an affirmation of their counsel, Christopher Albanese, and ten annexed exhibits labeled A through J. Exhibits A through and including H consists of each separately labeled pleading interposed in the instant action. Exhibit I is a copy of the same affirmation that was submitted by Jonathan Dorman in support of his motion. Exhibit J is a copy of an order issued by the Supreme Court of New Jersey denominated as "Order of Attorney Ineligibility for CLE Noncompliance." The order annexed as exhibit J states that it contains the names of the attorneys who have failed to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) requirement for one or more of the compliance-reporting years from 2011 through 2023, or failed to have demonstrated that they are entitled to an exemption from the CLE requirements. The order further states that each attorney whose name appears on the attached "Ineligible List" shall be ineligible to engage in the practice of New Jersey law, effective October 16, 2023 and shall remain ineligible to practice New Jersey law until the attorney submits to the Board on Continuing Legal Education a completed and certified compliance-reporting form, copies of all certificates of course attendance demonstrating compliance with the CLE requirement, all unpaid noncompliance fees, and a reinstatement fee of $100. Plaintiff Jonathan Dorman was listed as one of the ineligible attorneys in the New Jersey Supreme Court order.

Jonathan Dorman submitted his affirmation in reply and two annexed exhibits. The first exhibit was a letter from the Supreme Court of New Jersey stating that he was removed from the Continuing Legal Education Ineligibility List. The second was an image taken form a New Jersey Courts attorney search results web site. The site demonstrated that Jonathan Dorman was an active attorney in good standing.

Plaintiff Jonathan Dorman has moved for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 520.11 (a) (1) (c) and 22 NYCRR § 602.2, seeking to be admitted pro hac vice to appear and participate as co-counsel of his attorney of record, Nader Mobargha, on his part of the instant action.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 520.11 (a) (1), "whether an out-of-state attorney should be [*3]admitted pro hac vice to participate in a particular matter is a determination best left to the Supreme Court's discretion" (Neal v Ecolab, Inc., 252 AD2d 716, 716 [3d Dept 1988; Matter of Ancona, 17 AD3d 584, 584 [2d Dept 2005]; see Perkins v Elbilia, 90 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2011]; see also DeGidio v City of New York, 2013 WL 3243708, *1 [Sup Ct, New York County 2013]). Moreover, "[w]hile pro hac vice admission furthers this [s]tate's policy favoring representation by counsel of one's own choosing, that policy must be balanced against the interest in promoting judicial efficiency and a trial court's considerable authority to control its courtroom and calendar" (Neal v Ecolab, Inc., 252 AD2d at 716 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]; see also Giannotti v Mercedes Benz U.S.A., LLC, 20AD3d 389, 390-391 [2d Dept 2005].

The Herzog defendants contend that Jonathan Dorman misrepresented to the Court that he was a member in good standing of the New Jersey bar by failing to disclose that he was ineligible to practice law in New Jersey for a time due to his failure to comply with the CLE requirements applicable to attorneys admitted to the bar of New Jersey.

Contrary to the contention of the LuVa defendants, Jonathan Dorman did not misrepresent that he was a member in good standing of the New Jersey bar. His evidentiary submission, however, provided no explanation of what would be accomplished by granting the application. Apart from having personal knowledge of the alleged conduct of the defendants, Jonathan Dorman did not aver that he possessed any special skill or experience which would warrant his admission pro hac vice in this matter. (cf. Perkins v Elbilia, 90 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2011]).

Moreover, on March 6, 2025, at oral argument of the motion, the Court learned the following undisputed facts, which weighed heavily in the Court's discretionary determination. On June 10, 2024, a notice of appearance for plaintiff Jonathan Dorman was filed under NYSCEF Doc. No. 180. The notice of appearance stated that he was co-counsel to Beys Liston & Mobargha LLP for plaintiffs Jonathan Dorman and Merrill Stubbs. The notice of appearance also directed that all communications in the action be directed to Jonathan Dorman, Esq. at a Brooklyn address. In June 2024, plaintiffs' counsel of record had notified the LuVa defendants that Jonathan Dorman would be conducting the depositions of defendants Waldec Dec and Andrew Pasek on behalf of both plaintiffs.

CPLR 321 (a) provides in pertinent part that a person may, even if not a duly licensed attorney, appear in that person's own behalf in court. It further provides that a party who appears by an attorney may not act in person in the action, except by consent of the court.

There is no dispute that Jonathan Dorman is not admitted to practice law in the State of New York. It was therefore improper to file a notice of appearance for Jonathan Dorman on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was also improper for the LuVa defendants to be notified that Jonathan Dorman would be deposing defendants Waldec Dec and Andrew Pasek on behalf of the plaintiffs.

These two improper attempts to act as counsel for himself and Merrill Stubbs Dorman, his co-plaintiff, weigh against granting Jonathan Dorman's application. It demonstrates, at the very least, a lack of understanding of a basic tenet of the practice of law in the State of New York. While an individual may appear and represent oneself pro se, one must be admitted in the State of New York to represent another, with few exceptions, not applicable here (see Judiciary Law § 478). For this and other reasons, the court sees no benefit in granting Jonathan Dorman's admission pro hac vice to serve as co-counsel for himself. Rather, the court sees it as a potential [*4]source of confusion and increased prolixity with no counterbalancing benefit. The motion is therefore denied.

The motion by plaintiff Jonathan Dorman for an order granting his application for admission pro hac vice to appear and participate as co-counsel to Nader Mobargha, Esq., the plaintiffs' attorney of record, on his behalf is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court.