In re Christiansen, 220 A.D.2d 98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Christiansen, 220 A.D.2d 98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re Lin (nyappdiv, 2013-09-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although respondent has not been sentenced yet, this application is timely because “the date of plea or verdict is the date of conviction that triggers disbarment” (Matter of Christiansen, 220 AD2d 98, 99 [1st Dept 1996]; see also Matter of Cutillo, 86 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although respondent has not been sentenced yet, this application is timely because “the date of plea or verdict is the date of conviction that triggers disbarment” (Matter of Christiansen, 220 AD2d 98, 99 [1st Dept 1996]; see also Matter of Cutillo, 86 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Meiterman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
“Bribery in the third degree is a class D felony.” The Appellate Divisions of this State, including this Court, have held that, depending upon the underlying facts, a conviction under 18 USC § 1952 (a) (3) is analogous to bribery, in violation of Penal Law § 200.00 (see Matter of Cuti, 89 AD2d 97 [1982]), or to bribe receiving, in violation of Penal Law § 200.10 (see Matter of Paulus, 20 AD3d 761 [2005]; Matter of Brennan, 116 AD2d 414 [1986]; see also Matter of Zisselman, 2 AD3d 38 [2003] [this Court found that respondent’s 18 USC § 1952 conviction was analogous to the state felony …
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Hampton
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
This motion is timely “since it is well settled that the date of plea or verdict is the date of conviction that triggers disbarment” (Matter of Christiansen, 220 AD2d 98, 99 [1996]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Weissman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
This motion is timely “since it is well settled that the date of plea or verdict is the date of conviction that triggers disbarment” (Matter of Christiansen, 220 AD2d 98, 99 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Alfred M. Christiansen (Admitted as Alfred Magnus Christiansen), an Attorney, Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 9, 1996.
220 A.D.2d 98
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Richard M. Maltz of counsel (Hal R. Lieberman, attorney), for petitioner., No appearance for respondent.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent, Alfred M. Christiansen, was admitted to the practice of law in New York by the First Judicial Department[*99] on June 28, 1965. At all times relevant herein, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

On May 18, 1995, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, respondent was convicted after a jury trial of participation in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 USC § 1962 (c); racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 USC § 1962 (d); two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 USC § 1341; and two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 USC § 1343.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an’ order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), on the ground that he has been disbarred upon his conviction of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e). Respondent has not appeared in this proceeding.

The crime of participation in a racketeering enterprise, a felony under the Federal statute, is essentially similar to the New York State felony of enterprise corruption under Penal Law § 460.20. Respondent’s conviction of that count of the indictment therefore constitutes grounds for automatic disbarment under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a). In addition, under the conduct charged in that count alone, respondent committed at least four acts that are felonies under New York law—submitting false documents to a government agency (Penal Law § 175.35 [offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree]) and bribing a public official (Penal Law § 200.00 [bribery in the third degree])—and are grounds for disbarment. That sentence may not yet have been imposed does not bar petitioner’s relief, since it. is well settled that the date of plea or verdict is the date of conviction that triggers disbarment (Matter of David, 145 AD2d 150, 152; Matter of Kourland, 172 AD2d 77, 79).

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion is granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective May 18, 1995.

Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is directed to be struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective as of May 18, 1995.