Buttaro v. Nigro et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying plaintiff's request 35 for an opportunity to contest the reasons given by his counsel for the breakdown in their relationship. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 2/13/2017. A copy of this order has been mailed to the plaintiff. (Kessler, Stanley)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------x
THOMAS BUTTARO,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-5703(ILG)

-vCITY OF NEW YORK, et al,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------x
GLASSER, Senior United States District Judge:
In a letter dated September 23, 2016, the plaintiff’s then counsel requested the Court’s
permission to be relieved asserting “a complete breakdown in our ability to communicate with
the plaintiff.” In that letter, he also wrote that “in the event that the Court requires further
information, I request leave to file an affirmation for in camera review by the Court only to
preserve confidential and privileged information.” DE 26.
In a letter dated November 14, 2016, the plaintiff wrote “to inform your Honor that I do
not contest the withdrawal...as my attorneys in this matter.” DE 29
In a Memorandum and Order (“M&O”) dated January 12, 2017, I granted counsel’s
request to be relieved and extended plaintiff’s request to obtain new counsel to December 29,
2016. On December 28, 2016, plaintiff made another request for an extension to obtain new
counsel. In each of those requests, he wrote that he has “repeatedly been told time and again, that
either prospective counsel does not want to get involved in a case that is already in litigation or
that a union is involved in. Plaintiff feels that proceeding pro se would be detrimental to his
case.” His request for yet another extension was denied and he was advised that he was, from
that date forward, proceeding pro se. DE 34.
In a letter dated February 1, 2017, the plaintiff requests an opportunity to contest the

reasons given by counsel for the breakdown in their relationship because he believes “it would be
inherently unfair to proceed with my case Pro Se without the opportunity to inform the Court of
the reasons for the breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.” His request is denied. The
time has long since passed when interest in the finality of this litigation must be served.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
February 13, 2017

___/s/________________
I. Leo Glasser
Senior United States District Judge