In re Seader, 257 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · Go Syfert
In re Seader, 257 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2003 · …any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state ⚠ not in text
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Paul A. Seader, an Attorney, Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 20, 1999.
257 A.D.2d 285
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Antoinette Davi of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, attorney), for petitioner., No appearance for respondent.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent, Paul A. Seader, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 21, 1973. At all times relevant to this[*286] proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Judicial Department.

A superior court information filed in the New York County Supreme Court alleged that between 1984 and 1998, respondent fraudulently induced a client to invest over two million dollars ($2,000,000) by intentionally misrepresenting that the money was being deposited in an FDIC-insured American Express Bank in Puerto Rico. In reality, American Express Bank was not FDIC insured, nor did it have a Puerto Rico branch. During this 14-year period, respondent sent his client fraudulent account statements and letters to which respondent had signed the names of American Express Bank personnel, in order to mislead the client into believing that the money was on deposit in American Express Bank savings accounts. On January 22, 1999, respondent pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.42, a class B felony.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b). As respondent was automatically disbarred upon entry of his guilty plea to a New York felony, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e), the Committee’s petition should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys (Matter of Remmelink, 233 AD2d 25).

Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, and the name of respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York.