The opinion
Ingram v City of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 31539(U)
April 29, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 160742/2020
Judge: Carol Sharpe
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 01:08 PM INDEX NO. 160742/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK
COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. CAROL SHARPE PART 52M
Justice
__________, _ _ ,-------------------------------------X IN DEX NO. 160742/2020
VASHAWN INGRAM, KEITH BROCKETT, ALEIDA
RIVERA, MOTION DATE 03/05/2025
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ.
NO. 002
-v-
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE
OFFICER "JOHN DOE #1", NEW YORK CITY POLICE
OFFICER "JOHN DOE #2", AND NEW YORK CITY DECISION + ORDER ON
POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE #3",
MOTION
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
ATTORNEY-
were read on this motion to/for DISQUALIFY/RELIEVE/SUBSTITUTE/WITHDRAW .
Upon the foregoing documents, the fully submitted and unopposed motion by plaintiffs'
counsel to withdraw as counsel to plaintiffVashawn Ingram only is granted.
Plaintiffs Vashawn Ingram, Keith Brockett, and Aleida Rivera ("plaintiffs") commenced this
false arrest action against the defendants The City of New York, and New York City Police Officers
"John Doe #1 ", "John Doe #2", and "John Doe #3" ("defendants"), by filing their Summons and
Complaint on December 10, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc. #1). Issue was joined by The City of New York
filing its Answer on behalf of the defendants on May 26, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. #15).
Plaintiffs alleged that on January 11, 2020, they were driving on West 206 th Street between
9th and 10th Avenues in New York, New York, when, without probable cause, they were stopped,
pulled over, frisked, publicly assaulted and battered, threatened, handcuffed, and wrongfully placed
under arrest for approximately 30 minutes. Plaintiffs further alleged that the January 11, 2020,
incident was a part of a continuous pattern of ongoing harassment and abuse they have been subjected
160742/2020 INGRAM, VASHAWN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of6
Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 01:08 PM INDEX NO. 160742/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025
to for several years at the hands of New York City police officers. Plaintiffs seek damages for false
imprisonment, false arrest, negligence, deprivation of constitutional rights, civil assault, and civil
battery.
Plaintiffs' counsel moved by Order to Show Cause ("OSC") seeking to withdraw as counsel
to plaintiff Vashawn Ingram, and to stay the action for sixty (60) days for Vashawn Ingram to seek
other counsel, pursuant to CPLR §32l(b)(2) (NYSCEF Doc. #23). Oral arguments were held before
this Court on March 19, 2025. Plaintiffs' counsel filed the affidavit of service of the OSC on Vashawn
Ingram (NYSCEF Doc. #27). Vashawn Ingram did not file written opposition or appear for oral
arguments on March 19, 2025.
In support of the OSC, plaintiffs' counsel submitted an affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. #24) in which
he stated that the grounds for seeking to withdraw as counsel to Vashawn Ingram are that there is an
irreconcilable breakdown of the attorney-client relationship as Vashawn Ingram does not return his
calls or respond to his letters, and that continued representation ofVashawn Ingram would only serve
to cause undue delay and prejudice to the other two plaintiffs, Keith Brockett and Aleida Rivera.
New York Rules of Professional Conduct Rule l.16(c)(7), provides in pertinent parts that "a
lawyer may withdraw from representing a client when ... (7) the client fails to cooperate in the
representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry
out employment effectively." The Court may grant a plaintiff attorney's motion to withdraw as
counsel upon a demonstration of "good and sufficient cause for withdrawal, and that reasonable notice
had been provided to plaintiffs." Genn v. Ratnathicam, 187 A.D.3d 539, 130 N.Y.S.3d 669 (1 st Dept.
2020).
Here, plaintiffs' counsel satisfied the requirements to be relieved as counsel, in that he
established good cause, and Vashawn Ingram was given notice by counsel having served the OSC
and the accompanying papers via certified mail to Vashawn Ingram's last known address.
160742/2020 INGRAM, VASHAWN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of 6
Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 01:08 PM INDEX NO. 160742/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025
CPLR §603, which governs issues of severance and separate trials, states in pertinent part that
"[i]n furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice the court may order a severance of claims, or
may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue." The granting of a "severance
pursuant to CPLR §603 is a matter of judicial discretion which should not be disturbed on appeal
absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right of the party seeking the severance." Mothersil v.
Town Sports Int'!, 24 A.D.3d 424, 425, 804 N.Y.S.2d 687 (2 nd Dept. 2005). The court may grant
severance sua sponte. See generally, Bennett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 181 A.D.3d 774, 122
N.Y.S.3d 321 (2 nd Dept. 2020); Sichel v. Cmty. Synagogue, 256 A.D.2d 276, 682 N.Y.S.2d 382 (1 st
Dept. 1998); ACP Master, Ltd. v. Vitro S.A.B. de C. V., 34 Misc. 3d 1201(A), 941 N.Y.S.2d 536, 536
(Sup Ct, NY County 2011 ). Granting severance where the prejudice of delay outweighs the
inconvenience is not an abuse of discretion. See, Golden v. Moscowitz, 194 A.D.2d 385, 598 N.Y.S.2d
522 (1st Dept. 1993).
Here, Vashawn Ingram has failed to return counsel's calls, or respond to his letters, thereby
causing a delay which will prejudice a substantial right of the remaining plaintiffs. Hence, severance
sua sponte is appropriate and Vashawn Ingram may proceed with his action separately, should he
choose to do so. It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the sixty (60) day stay of all further proceedings shall remain in effect,
commencing from the date of the Order to Show Cause signed March 6, 2025; it is further
ORDERED, that the Order to Show Cause seeking to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff
Vashawn Ingram is granted without opposition; it is further
ORDERED, that moving counsel shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry, upon
Vashawn Ingram in the same manner the Order to Show Cause was served, or by regular mail, email,
text message, or direct messaging via social media to an account belonging to Vashawn Ingram within
160742/2020 INGRAM, VASHAWN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 6
Motion No. 002
[* 3] 3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 01:08 PM INDEX NO. 160742/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025
ten ( 10) days of the date of this Order, and file proof of service within ten (10) days after such service
is completed; it is further
ORDERED, that together with the copy of this Order with Notice of Entry served upon
Vashawn Ingram, moving counsel shall forward a notice directing Vashawn Ingram to appoint a
substitute attorney within thirty (30) days from the date of service of said notice and Vashawn Ingram
shall comply therewith, except that, in the event Vashawn Ingram intends to represent himself, he
shall notify the Clerk of this Part of his decision, in writing, within said thirty (30) day period; it is
further
ORDERED, that any new attorney retained by Vashawn Ingram in this matter shall file a
Notice of Appearance with the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office and the Clerk of the Court within
thirty (30) days from the date the notice to retain new counsel is served; it is further
ORDERED, that no further proceedings may be taken against Vashawn Ingram without leave
of this Court for a period of thirty (30) days after service on Vashawn Ingram of the notice to appoint
a substitute attorney is completed; it is further
ORDERED, that in furtherance of convenience and to prevent prejudicing the substantial
rights of Keith Brockett and Aleida Rivera arising from Vashawn Ingram's unduly delayed
participation in the present action, Vashawn Ingram is removed as a party in this action; it is further
ORDERED, that the action is severed and this proceeding shall continue against the
defendants with respect to plaintiffs Keith Brockett and Aleida Rivera only; it is further
ORDERED, that, if appropriate, and upon payment of any appropriate fees along with service
of a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry, the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office shall assign a
separate index number to the severed action, and the caption of the severed action shall appear as
follows:
160742/2020 INGRAM, VASHAWN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page4 of6
Motion No. 002
[* 4] 4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 01:08 PM INDEX NO. 160742/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
VASHA WN INGRAM,
Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE #1 ", NEW YORK
CITY POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE #2", AND
NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE
#3",
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
; it is further
ORDERED, that new counsel to plaintiff Vashawn Ingram shall file, under the new index
number to be assigned to the severed action, a copy of all papers previously filed under this action
that were filed prior to and through the date of this Order; it is further
ORDERED, that the caption of the present proceeding be amended as follows to reflect the
remaining plaintiffs, and all future papers filed with the Court shall bear this amended caption:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
KEITH BROCKETT and ALEIDA RIVERA,
Plaintiffs,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE #1 ", NEW YORK
CITY POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE #2", AND
NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER "JOHN DOE
#3",
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
160742/2020 INGRAM, VASHAWN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 5of6
Motion No. 002
[* 5] 5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2025 01:08 PM INDEX NO. 160742/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2025
; it is further
ORDERED, that moving counsel, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, shall
serve this Order with Notice of Entry on the Clerk of the Court, and file proof of said service within
ten (10) days thereafter, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to update the Court's records to reflect
the severance of the action as to plaintiff Vashawn Ingram and the amended caption; and it is further
ORDERED, that service of this Order upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in hard-copy
format if this action is a hard-copy matter, or if it is an e-file case, shall be made in accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-filing" page on the court's website).
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER:
April 29, 2025
DATE
HON. CAROL SHARPE
---·· . -, - c . h&. J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
160742/2020 INGRAM, VASHAWN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 6 of 6
Motion No. 002
[* 6] 6 of 6