Chen v Romona Keveza Collection LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 34953(U) December 16, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153413/2020
Judge: Emily Morales-Minerva

Attorney wants out, client wants him to stay, huge payments and unauthorized use of a corporate credit card notwithstanding.

“Non-party movant Sutton Sachs Meyer PLLC, New York, NY (Zachary G. Meyers, Esq., of counsel), moves, by order to show cause (mot. seq. no. 010), pursuant to CPLR § 321 (bl (2), for an order permitting it to withdraw as attorney of record for defendants ROMONA KEVEZA COLLECTION, LLC, ROMONA KEVEZA ONE ROCK, LLC, ROMONA KEVEZA 1 ROCK, LLC, and ROMONA KEVEZA (defendants) . 1 Plaintiffs JOSEPH CHEN, INC., and DINA KOZLOVSKA (plaintiffs) oppose the application, {l) arguing prejudice and
(2) asserting that non-party Zachary G. Meyers, Esq., of counsel to defendants, has engaged in a “repeated pattern of misconduct and dilatory behaviorn (New York State Courts Electronic Filing System [NYSCEF) Doc. No. 375, affirmation of James E. Murphy in Opposition, ~ 2). Therefore, plaintiffs move for sanctions against non-party movant Sutton Sachs Meyer PLLC, New York, NY (Zachary G. Meyers, Esq., of counsel) and/or Zachary G. Meyers, Esq., individually (see id.; see also Uniform Civil Rules for Supreme Court [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1 [c] [2] [Costs;sanctions])”

“On record, Zachary G. Meyers stated that the attorneyclient relationship between non-party law firm and defendants is irretrievably broken. In support of this contention, Zachary G. Meyers stated that Romana Keveza threatened to file a legal malpractice action against him and that she threatened to report Zachary G. Meyers to the bar, among other things.

Romona Keveza countered, under oath, that she never made such threats and that Zachary G. Meyers’s statements are completely false. Romona Keveza affirmed that she did not know how to reach the bar, and that she was completely surprised by the allegations her counsel was making against her. Further, Romona Keveza expressed wanting Zachary G. Meyers to continue to represent her and defendants Romana Keveza Collection, LLC, Romona Keveza One Rock, LLC, and Romona Keveza 1 Rock, LLC.”

In response, Zachary G. Meyers explicitly stated that his client was lying to the Court, insisting that she did threaten him with a legal malpractice action and challenging other
statements Romona Keveza made on the record as untrue. Romona Keveza asserted, under oath, that, among other things, Zachary G. Meyers charged at or around $180,000.00 to her corporate credit card without her permission, and that she
has paid him substantially for his services. Romona Keveza continued to express shock at how counsel characterized her. Still, Romona Keveza expressed hope of not having to engage new counsel and of having this Court deny non-party’s application.

An attorney may withdraw as counsel upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, and reasonable notice (see CPLR § 321 [b] [2]; see also Bok v Werner, 9 AD3d 318 [1st Dept
2004]). “Good cause exists [for counsel] to end [their] relationship with [a] client [when there is an] irretrievable breakdown in the relationship or a failure of cooperation by the
client” (Matter of Cassini, 182 AD3d 13, 40 [2d Dept 2020]; see also Raff & Becker LLP v Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., 160 AD3d 479 (1st Dept 2018]). The question of whether good cause exists lies within the sound discretion of the court (see Rivadeneria v
New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 306 AD2d 394 [2d Dept 2003]).”

“Here, counsel Zachary G. Meyers and his client Romona Keveza make serious statements against each other, advancing materially different versions of the facts underlying nonparty’s motion for withdrawal. This circumstance presents a clear question of credibility. However, no genuine question exists that their attorney-client relationship has irreparably broken down.
Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the subject motion, permitting non-party Sutton Sachs Meyer PLLC to withdraw, and staying this action to provide defendants an opportunity to obtain new counsel.”