Amended MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by… — Amended MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by PHILIP REIZENSTEIN. by… (Dkt. 75)

Summary

An Amended Application to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Defendant Eric Rivera, filed April 28, 2025 as Doc. 75 in United States of America v. Eric Rivera, Adrienne Ponzo, and James Wessels, Crim. No. 24-267 (KMW), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Counsel Philip L. Reizenstein states that irreconcilable differences and accusations against counsel prevent continued representation of Mr. Rivera. The application states that there will be no prejudice because trial is set for October 1, 2025 and that Mr. Rivera has not responded to requests for his position. It states that Assistant United States Attorney Daniel Friedman indicated that the Court should hold a hearing as soon as possible.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
 
========================================================================= 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
========================================================================= 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
Crim. No. 24-267 (KMW) 
 
against 
 AMENDED APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS 
ATTORNEY OF RECORD  
 
 
ERIC RIVERA, ADRIENNE 
PONZO, and JAMES 
WESSELS, 
Defendants. 
 
 
Amended Application is hereby made for an Order allowing the undersigned attorney to 
withdraw as attorney of record for Defendant Eric Rivera:  
1. 
There have arisen between counsel and Mr. Rivera severe irreconcilable 
differences that have prevented counsel and Mr. Rivera from being able to discuss 
his case and his defense.   
2. 
There have been accusations against the undersigned attorney that do not allow him 
to continue representing Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rivera is entitled to counsel that he can 
confide in, speak with, and with whom he believes fully represents his interests. 
None of those parts of the attorney/client relationship currently exist and cannot 
exist based on discussions that counsel asserts are privileged.  
3.  
Reasons for withdrawal of counsel include a client's lack of cooperation, including 
lack of communication with counsel, and the existence of irreconcilable conflict 
between attorney and client. See Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. 
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 657 B.R. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2024);  
Farmer v. Hyde Your Eyes Optical, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).  
 
Courts may also consider whether the prosecution of the suit is likely to be 
disrupted by the withdrawal of counsel, the likely prejudice to the client, whether 
the motion is opposed, and whether unpaid representation has become a severe 
financial hardship to the firm.  Stair v. Calhoun, 722 F. Supp. 2d 258 (E.D.N.Y. 
Case 1:24-cr-00267-KMW     Document 75     Filed 04/28/25     Page 1 of 2 PageID: 492

 
2 
 
2010). Additionally, hostility or irreconcilable differences between the attorney and 
the client are sufficient to warrant a withdrawal.  Krick v. Raytheon Company, 757 
F. Supp. 3d 342 (E.D.N.Y. 2024).  The issues between counsel and client have 
unfortunately risen to the level of hostility and accusations against the undersigned 
attorney which have shown to counsel that there is no more attorney/client 
relationship that exists and differences are irreconcilable.  
4.  
There will be no prejudice to the Government, the Court’s administration of Justice, 
or Mr. Rivera as the trial in this matter is set for October 1, 2025 [DE 58]. 1 
5. 
 Mr. Rivera’s has not responded to requests for his position on this motion.  
6. 
Counsel for the United States, AUSA Daniel Friedman, has indicated that the 
Government’s position is that, because leave of Court is required for counsel to 
withdraw, and because the Court needs to balance the relevant factors after 
considering all of the facts of a particular case, the Court should hold a hearing as 
soon as possible to consider the issue and avoid undue delay in the administration 
of justice.2 
 
Dated: April 28, 2025  
Respectfully submitted,  
S/Philip L. Reizenstein 
Philip L. Reizenstein, Esq. 
Florida Bar# 634026 
2828 Coral Way 
Suite 540 
Miami, FL, 33145 
(305) 444-0755 
Phil@Reizensteinlaw.com 
 
 
 
1 The Government has set a deadline for plea negotiations that counsel will ask the Government to extend 
based on the issues raised in this motion.  
2 Counsel Philip Reizenstein is starting a one-month trial before Judge R. Altman in the Southern District 
of Florida (Case No. 24-cr-20341, USA v. Ramirez). Counsel will request permission from Judge Altman 
to attend a hearing on the present motion telephonically if this Court allows. 
Case 1:24-cr-00267-KMW     Document 75     Filed 04/28/25     Page 2 of 2 PageID: 493

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.njd.546706.75.0.pdf

Size

181,098 bytes

SHA-256

f4732cce6b156862d26d50bf0739039caef83dec363b0453f898f24b9d224385

Our copy

gov.uscourts.njd.546706.75.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)