Committee motion in New York

2018Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since February 21, 2017, the date of respondent's suspension, and he has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Hidalgo , 158 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Antwi , 157 AD3d 55 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Shedrinsky , 152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones , 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017];

2017Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s November 3, 2016 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (Matter of Jones, 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Odikpo, 147 AD3d 48 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Durove, 144 AD3d 4 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Johnson, 22 AD3d 106 [1st Dept 2005]).

2014Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsden, 112 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter o

2014Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsden, 112 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter o

2015Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s interim suspension order and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (Matter of Fletcher, 70 AD3d 63 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 *187 AD3d 169 [1st Dept 2008]; Matter of Ryans, 46 AD3d

2011Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s interim suspension order and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (Matter of Fletcher, 70 AD3d 63 [2009]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 [2008]; Matter of Ryans, 46 AD3d 71 [2007]).

1998Respondent’s conduct “evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial system, and can only be interpreted as a deliberate and willful attempt to impede the Committee’s investigation.” (Matter of Gordon, 142 AD2d 135, 137 ; see also, Matter of Lubell, 189 AD2d 186 ; Matter of Valdes, 160 AD2d 31 .) Accordingly, the Committee’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, until such time as the disciplinary proceeding pending before the Committee has been concluded, and until further order of this Court.

1997Respondent’s conduct "evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial system, and can only be interpreted as a deliberate and willful attempt to impede the Committee’s investigation.” (Matter of Gordon, 142 AD2d 135, 137 ; see also, Matter of Lu-bell, 189 AD2d 187 ; Matter of Valdes, 160 AD2d 31 .) Accordingly, the Committee’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) is granted and respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and until further order of this Court.

2022Accordingly, as six months have elapsed since this Court's September 16, 2021 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to, nor appeared [*2]for, further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately ( Matter of Meltzer , 201 AD3d 28 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Frieary , 199 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Kelley , 194 AD3d 47 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Shapiro , 184 AD3d 352 [1st D

2022Accordingly, as six months have elapsed since this Court's September 16, 2021 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to, nor appeared [*2]for, further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately ( Matter of Meltzer , 201 AD3d 28 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Frieary , 199 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Kelley , 194 AD3d 47 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Shapiro , 184 AD3d 352 [1st D

2015Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s interim suspension order and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (Matter of Fletcher, 70 AD3d 63 [1st Dept 2009]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 *187 AD3d 169 [1st Dept 2008]; Matter of Ryans, 46 AD3d

2011Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s interim suspension order and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (Matter of Fletcher, 70 AD3d 63 [2009]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 [2008]; Matter of Ryans, 46 AD3d 71 [2007]).

2023Inasmuch as six months have elapsed since this Court's May 17, 2022 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately ( Matter of Greenblum, 207 AD3d 101 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Meltzer , 201 AD3d 28 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Frieary , 199 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Kelley , 194 AD3d 47 [1st Dept 20

2023Inasmuch as six months have elapsed since this Court's May 17, 2022 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately ( Matter of Greenblum, 207 AD3d 101 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Meltzer , 201 AD3d 28 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Frieary , 199 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Kelley , 194 AD3d 47 [1st Dept 20

2014Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsden, 112 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter o

2014Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsden, 112 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter o

2018In light of the above, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Kelly , __AD3d__, 2017 NY Slip Op 07698 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Shedrinsky , 152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones , 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Odikpo , 147 AD3d 48 [1st Dept 2016]).

2018Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since February 21, 2017, the date of respondent's suspension, and he has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Hidalgo , 158 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Antwi , 157 AD3d 55 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Shedrinsky , 152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones , 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017];

2016We grant the Committee’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented and in the interest of justice, Dasent should be disbarred in this state (see Matter of Hock Loon Yong, 130 AD3d 1428 , 1429 [2015]; Matter of Felli, 116 AD3d 1335 , 1335 [2014]).

2015We grant the Committee’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented and in the interest of justice, Yong should be disbarred in this state (see Matter of Karnazes, 128 AD3d 1169 [2015]; Matter of Felli, 116 AD3d 1335 [2014]).

2015We grant the Committee’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented and in the interest of justice, Yong should be disbarred in this state (see Matter of Karnazes, 128 AD3d 1169 [2015]; Matter of Felli, 116 AD3d 1335 [2014]).

2015We grant the Committee’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented and in the interest of justice, Yong should be disbarred in this state (see Matter of Karnazes, 128 AD3d 1169 [2015]; Matter of Felli, 116 AD3d 1335 [2014]).

2014Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s June 6, 2013 suspension order and respondent has not appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Mainiero, 109 AD3d 133 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of McGraw, 107 AD3d 83 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Siskin, 78 AD3d 112 [1st

2014Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s June 6, 2013 suspension order and respondent has not appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Mainiero, 109 AD3d 133 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of McGraw, 107 AD3d 83 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Siskin, 78 AD3d 112 [1st

2011Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted (Matter of Fletcher, 70 AD3d 63 [2009]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 [2008]; Matter of Benzing, 51 AD3d 236 [2008]; Matter of Ryans, 46 AD3d 71 [2007]), and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, ef

2011Since more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted (Matter of Fletcher, 70 AD3d 63 [2009]; Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 [2008]; Matter of Benzing, 51 AD3d 236 [2008]; Matter of Ryans, 46 AD3d 71 [2007]), and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York.

2000Accordingly, in light of the foregoing and inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee nor this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), should be granted (Matter of Tucker, 241 AD2d 250 ) and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective immediately.

2000Accordingly, since more than six months have passed since this Court’s suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent should be granted (Matter of Tucker, 241 AD2d 250 ), and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective immediately.

2018In light of the above, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Kelly , __AD3d__, 2017 NY Slip Op 07698 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Shedrinsky , 152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones , 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Odikpo , 147 AD3d 48 [1st Dept 2016]).

2018Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since February 21, 2017, the date of respondent's suspension, and he has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Hidalgo , 158 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Antwi , 157 AD3d 55 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Shedrinsky , 152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones , 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017];

2018In light of the above, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Kelly , __AD3d__, 2017 NY Slip Op 07698 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Shedrinsky , 152 AD3d 132 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones , 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Odikpo , 147 AD3d 48 [1st Dept 2016]).

2017Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s November 3, 2016 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (Matter of Jones, 148 AD3d 113 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Odikpo, 147 AD3d 48 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Durove, 144 AD3d 4 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Johnson, 22 AD3d 106 [1st Dept 2005]).

2017Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s June 23, 2016 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (b) should be granted and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Durove, 144 AD3d 4 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of McCann, 143 AD3d 98 [1st Dept 2016]). *40 Tom, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ., concur.

2017Accordingly, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent is granted, and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Durove, 144 AD3d 4 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of McCann, 143 AD3d 98 [1st Dept 2016]).

2015Sommer replied to the motion, but failed to raise any available defenses (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 3SYCRR] § 806.19 [d]), and, therefore, we grant the Committee’s motion. 3VIoreover, having considered the nature of *1360 Sommer’s misconduct, her letter memorandum in mitigation and the consequent discipline imposed in New Jersey, we conclude that she should also be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of one year (see Matter of Engelhart, 125 AD3d 1094 , 1094 [2015]; Matter of Yannon, 117 AD3d 1380 , 1381 [2014]).

2015Moreover, having considered the nature of Engelhart’s misconduct and the consequent discipline imposed in New Jersey, we conclude that he should also be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of one year (see Matter of Yannon, 117 AD3d 1380 , 1381 [2014]; Matter of Murphy, 103 AD3d 927 [2013]).

2014Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsden, 112 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter o

2014Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since this Court’s April 25, 2013 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Gadsden, 112 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Way, 109 AD3d 148 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Reis, 105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter o

2013Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since our June 12, 2012 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Millstone, 98 AD3d 329 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Burke, 62 AD3d 94 [1st Dept 2009]).

2013Accordingly, inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since our June 12, 2012 suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York (see Matter of Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Millstone, 98 AD3d 329 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Burke, 62 AD3d 94 [1st Dept 2009]).

2012Respondent has failed to comply with the Committee’s lawful request for documentation, to respond to its subpoenas and to answer multiple complaints, which can only be inter preted as a deliberate and willful noncompliance with the Committee’s investigation, warranting immediate suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) (see Matter of Maruggi, 87 AD3d 201 [2011]; Matter of Fish, 57 AD3d 112 [2008]).

2012Respondent has failed to comply with the Committee’s lawful request for documentation, to respond to its subpoenas and to answer multiple complaints, which can only be inter preted as a deliberate and willful noncompliance with the Committee’s investigation, warranting immediate suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) (see Matter of Maruggi, 87 AD3d 201 [2011]; Matter of Fish, 57 AD3d 112 [2008]).

2012Because more than six months have elapsed since the date of the order suspending respondent from the practice of law, and respondent has not applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion to disbar respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted (see Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 [2008]; Matter of Johnson, 22 AD3d 106 [2005]; Matter of Schulze, 10 AD3d 135 [2004]).

2012Because more than six months have elapsed since the date of the order suspending respondent from the practice of law, and respondent has not applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee’s motion to disbar respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) should be granted (see Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 [2008]; Matter of Johnson, 22 AD3d 106 [2005]; Matter of Schulze, 10 AD3d 135 [2004]).

2008Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted to the extent that it seeks an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, and respondent disbarred from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Harris, 37 AD3d 90 [2006]; Matter of Anschell, 11 AD3d 56 [2004]).

2007Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted to the extent that it seeks an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, and respondent is disbarred from the practice of law, effective immediately (Matter of Harris, 37AD3d 90 [2006]; Matter of Dranov, 14 AD3d 156 [2004]; Matter of Anschell, 11 AD3d 56 [2004]).

2023On May 17, 2022, this Court granted the Committee's motion and immediately suspended respondent from the practice of law ( Matter of Meettook , 206 AD3d 9 [1st Dept 2022]).

2023On May 17, 2022, this Court granted the Committee's motion and immediately suspended respondent from the practice of law ( Matter of Meettook , 206 AD3d 9 [1st Dept 2022]).