DiddyDocket Dispatch
Seven Güzel v. Sean Combs et al. + 3 related cases
New York Supreme Court No. 152568/2025 Justice Leslie A. Stroth
Oct 10, 2026

Güzel v. Combs: Sher Tremonte Asks Appeals Court to Let It Withdraw as Combs’s Counsel; Plaintiff Opposes

N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t · No. 2026-06137 · Application Filed Sept. 29, 2026

← All Dispatches

In the matter of Güzel v. Combs, et al., No. 2026-06137 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t), the law firm Sher Tremonte LLP asked the Appellate Division on Sept. 29, 2026 to review a trial judge’s refusal to let it withdraw as counsel to Sean Combs and five companies in Seven Güzel’s civil suit, Index No. 152568/2025, and to stay deadlines there for 30 days. The firm applies as a non-party; partner Erica A. Wolff signed. CPLR 5704(a) lets an appellate court review a refusal to sign an order to show cause (the paper that sets a motion for a hearing), which cannot be appealed directly. (App. Div. ECF No. 3, Wolff Aff. ¶ 15.)

Background

On Sept. 15, Sher Tremonte proposed an order to show cause asking Justice Leslie A. Stroth to relieve it as counsel for Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Daddy’s House Recordings Inc., CE OpCo, LLC and Revolt Media and TV LLC. (Sup. Ct. ECF Nos. 170–171.) The order came back unsigned. A handwritten note dated Sept. 16 and entered Sept. 18 reads, as the firm quotes it: “This firm is counsel to the Combs Defendants in many matters before this court at various stages of litigation. The court will not permit withdrawal based on the reasons stated (e.g. difficulty in communication the last 4 months, while Mr. Combs has been incarcerated), and without substitution of new counsel.” (Sup. Ct. ECF No. 172; App. Div. ECF No. 3, Wolff Aff. ¶ 13.)

What Sher Tremonte Says

Sher Tremonte says Combs signed an engagement letter agreeing to pay fees within 30 days of each invoice, that invoices went through his power of attorney, and that his failure to pay “for over six months” left the defendants “falling far behind on their payments despite numerous reminders.” It also says there has been “a total breakdown in cooperation and communication,” and that Combs “has declined to make himself available for timely, substantive, and direct communications about his cases for over four months.” It adds that withdrawal would not harm the defendants because the court has set no deadlines. (Sup. Ct. ECF No. 171 ¶¶ 3, 5–7.)

The firm says it warned Combs by mail, and his power of attorney by email, on Sept. 3 and Sept. 11 that it would seek to withdraw, and that, as of Sept. 29, no Combs defendant had named replacement counsel. The papers give no dollar figure, attach neither the engagement letter nor invoices, and do not say why communication stopped. The firm offers more detail “in camera or otherwise, at the Court’s request.” (Sup. Ct. ECF No. 171 ¶¶ 8, 11; App. Div. ECF No. 3, Wolff Aff. ¶ 14.)

The firm argues the note misreads the problem: Combs “has been incarcerated for the entire period of Sher Tremonte’s representation in this matter,” and the firm “was able to communicate with Mr. Combs effectively until approximately four months ago.” It also argues that refusing withdrawal “without substitution of new counsel” is “not supported by either New York law or the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.” (App. Div. ECF No. 3, Wolff Aff. ¶¶ 24–25.)

What the Plaintiff Says

Annette G. Hasapidis, who describes herself as “appellate counsel for Plaintiff,” filed an affirmation on Sept. 30 arguing that the application “was properly denied for failure to meet counsel’s burden of proof and because it will prejudice the other parties in this case.” The affirmation says the firm gave the trial court no evidence that Combs had received a copy of the application, and warned him only twice “in less than one month.” It states that “defense counsel has made every effort possible to delay this case and this is just another effort,” and asks that any stay be “no more than 30 days.” (App. Div. ECF No. 4 ¶¶ 1, 3–4, 7, 9.)

Sher Tremonte’s Reply

In an Oct. 5 reply, Wolff argues that plaintiff may not object to the withdrawal of an opponent’s lawyers, and says it is “unclear on whose behalf the opposition was filed.” The reply says that on Sept. 15 Wolff emailed Combs’s power of attorney the filed papers; the firm’s trial-court affirmation had said Combs “will be provided a copy of these papers in their as-filed form.” It adds that on Oct. 4 the Combs defendants moved in the trial court for a protective order against plaintiff’s discovery demands or, alternatively, a stay of all disclosure pending their stay motion and the withdrawal application. (App. Div. ECF No. 6 ¶¶ 9, 12, 20 & n.1; Sup. Ct. ECF Nos. 176–180.)

Where It Stands

Revolt Media and TV LLC, which Sher Tremonte also represents, consents. The remaining Combs defendants “have been informed of this application but have not indicated their position,” according to the firm’s summary statement. (App. Div. ECF No. 3 at 1.) A court form dated Oct. 1 sets the motion for Oct. 5, with a reply due that morning. (App. Div. ECF No. 5; ECF No. 6 ¶ 5.) An Oct. 1 docket entry that NYSCEF labels a decision and order is that form with its disposition blank; it contains no ruling. No decision, and no filing by Combs or any company defendant, appears among the appellate entries through Oct. 5.

Related Withdrawal Motions

Sher Tremonte has made the same request in two other First Department matters. On Sept. 18 it filed a notice of motion to withdraw as counsel to Combs, the plaintiff-appellant, in Combs v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, et al., No. 2026-03017 (Index No. 151935/2025). On Oct. 2 it filed one, in the lead appeal (No. 2025-03003), to withdraw as counsel to Combs and seven companies in six consolidated appeals from orders in Doe v. Combs cases, Nos. 2025-03003, -03004, -03008, -03012, -03013 and -03014. Both motions rely on CPLR 321(b)(2). (App. Div. 2026-03017 ECF No. 4; App. Div. 2025-03003 ECF No. 9; App. Div. 2025-03004 ECF No. 10.)

Each supporting affirmation says Combs did not pay the firm’s fees, says there has been “a total breakdown in cooperation and communication,” says the firm warned him by mail, and his power of attorney by email, on Sept. 3 and Sept. 11, and offers more detail “in camera or otherwise.” The notices name return dates of Sept. 28 and Oct. 12. The docket entries available show no ruling on either motion. (App. Div. 2026-03017 ECF No. 4, Wolff Aff. ¶¶ 4–5, 7, 10; App. Div. 2025-03003 ECF No. 9, Cuccaro Aff. ¶¶ 4–5, 7, 10.)

Counsel and Sources

The summary statement lists Michael Tremonte for Sher Tremonte and Jordan Merson of Merson Law PLLC for plaintiff. Source: App. Div. ECF Nos. 3–7 on the appeal docket; Sup. Ct. ECF Nos. 170–172, 176–180 on the Güzel v. Combs docket. Earlier: the Sept. 16 note declining to sign the order.

Diddy Docket reports on public court records. Parties are presumed innocent or not liable unless proven otherwise. This is not legal advice.

Related cases
Sourcing
Share: X / Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

← All Dispatches