AGC motion in New York

2017Respondent has not replied or otherwise responded to AGC’s motion or raised any of the available defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]); therefore, we grant the motion (see Matter of Bailey, 145 AD3d 1182, 1182 [2016]; Matter of Halbfish, 78 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2010]).

2017Respondent has not replied or otherwise responded to AGC’s motion or raised any of the available defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]); therefore, we grant the motion (see Matter of Bailey, 145 AD3d 1182, 1182 [2016]; Matter of Halbfish, 78 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2010]).

2024Respondent has not responded to AGC's motion; thus, we deem the defenses enumerated in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters § 1240.13 (b) waived ( see Matter of Hankes , 210 AD3d 1282, 1282 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Colby , 156 AD3d 1215, 1215-1216 [3d Dept 2017]).

2023Respondent has not responded to AGC's motion; thus we find that he has waived his available defenses and deem his misconduct established ( see Matter of Hankes , 210 AD3d 1282, 1282 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Colby , 156 AD3d 1215, 1215-1216 [3d Dept 2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]). [FN2] Turning to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's misconduct ( see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [c]), we note that respondent's misconduct is aggravated by his failure to notify this Court and AGC of his Flori

2025Thus, we grant AGC's motion, confirm respondent's disbarment and strike his name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to September 5, 2025, the date of his guilty plea ( see Matter of Tendler , 131 AD3d 1301, 1302 [3d Dept 2015]; Matter of Russell , 216 AD2d 790, 791 [3d Dept 1995]).

2025Thus, we grant AGC's motion, confirm respondent's disbarment and strike his name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to September 5, 2025, the date of his guilty plea ( see Matter of Tendler , 131 AD3d 1301, 1302 [3d Dept 2015]; Matter of Russell , 216 AD2d 790, 791 [3d Dept 1995]).

2023Given this, we partially grant AGC's motion, [FN1] find the misconduct established and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction ( see Matter of Hoines , 185 AD3d at 1350; Matter of Abongwa , 176 AD3d 1471 , 1473 [3d Dept 2019]).

2021In her submission to this Court in response to AGC's motion, respondent raises none of her available defenses and, accordingly, we find that she has waived her opportunity to do so ( see Matter of Hoines , 185 AD3d 1349, 1349 [2020]).

2018Consequently, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC's investigation and until further order of this Court ( see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; see also Matter of Battaglia , 159 AD3d 1269 [2018]; Matter of DiStefano , 154 AD3d 1055 [2017]; Matter of Humphrey , 151 AD3d 1539 [2017]).

2018Consequently, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC's investigation and until further order of this Court ( see Rules for Attorney [*2]Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; see also Matter of DiStefano , 154 AD3d 1055 [2017]; Matter of Humphrey , 151 AD3d 1539 [2017]).

2025Here, respondent's failure to submit a timely response to AGC's motion constitutes a waiver of the available defenses ( see Matter of Laurenzo , 231 AD3d 1236 , 1236 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Hankes , 210 AD3d 1282, 1282 [3d Dept 2022]). [FN1] Accordingly, we deem the misconduct established, grant AGC's motion and turn to the sanction to be imposed.

2025Inasmuch as respondent has failed to respond to AGC's motion, he has presented no mitigating factors for consideration, particularly factors that might merit a deviation from the serious discipline imposed in New Jersey ( see Matter of Hankes , 210 AD3d at 1283 ; Matter of Ugwuonye , 209 AD3d 1254, 1255 [3d Dept 2022]).

2018Respondent has not responded or otherwise appeared on the motion. [FN1] Respondent's failure to respond to AGC's motion results in the waiver of his available defenses ( see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]) and, accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction ( see Matter of Colby , 156 AD3d 1215, 1215-1216 [2017]; Matter of Bailey , 145 AD3d 1182, 1182 [2016]).

2018Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction ( see Matter of Bailey , 145 AD3d 1182, 1182-1183 [2016]; Matter of Steig , 144 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2016]).

2019Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately ( see Matter of Reynolds , 151 AD3d 1542, 1543 [2017]).

2018Accordingly, we find that respondent has engaged in conduct that poses an immediate threat to the public interest, grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from practice, effective immediately ( see Matter of Reynolds , 151 AD3d at 1543 ).

2018We, therefore, grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC's investigations and until further order of this Court ( see Matter of DiStefano , 154 AD3d 1055, 1057 [2017]; Matter of Nichols , 152 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2017]).

2018Consequently, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC's investigation and until further order of this Court ( see Rules for Attorney [*2]Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; see also Matter of DiStefano , 154 AD3d 1055 [2017]; Matter of Humphrey , 151 AD3d 1539 [2017]).

2025To the extent that respondent seeks to delay this proceeding given his pending pardon application, we note that the automatic disbarment provision of Judiciary Law § 90 is self-executing ( see Matter of Young , 232 AD3d at 1111); thus, there is no basis to deny or otherwise delay in deciding AGC's motion, which is a "formality that merely confirms respondent's disbarment" in New York ( Matter of Butcher, 153 AD3d 1127, 1127 [3d Dept 2017]).

2025To the extent that respondent seeks to delay this proceeding given his pending pardon application, we note that the automatic disbarment provision of Judiciary Law § 90 is self-executing ( see Matter of Young , 232 AD3d at 1111); thus, there is no basis to deny or otherwise delay in deciding AGC's motion, which is a "formality that merely confirms respondent's disbarment" in New York ( Matter of Butcher, 153 AD3d 1127, 1127 [3d Dept 2017]).

2024As such, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent during the pendency of AGC's investigation and until further order of this Court ( see Matter of Canizio , 210 AD3d at 1188; Matter of Nestler , 193 AD3d at 1321-1322).

2024Importantly, AGC states that it has "no knowledge of whether respondent's escrow account remains open or whether respondent continues to use the account for any purpose." Accordingly, we find that there is an immediate threat to the public should this escrow account remain open and, therefore, we grant AGC's motion, suspending respondent from the practice of law ( see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; Matter of Canizio , 210 AD3d at 1188 ).

2025In doing so, we remind respondent of his affirmative and ongoing obligation to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, and note that his failure to do so within six months of this order may result in his disbarment without further notice ( see Matter of Canizio , 210 AD3d 1187, 1188-1189 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Fauci , 200 AD3d 1474, 1475 [3d Dept 2021]).

2023By December 2021 order, however, this Court suspended respondent from practice upon allegations that he had been uncooperative with the investigation of his conduct by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) ( Matter of Fauci , 200 AD3d 1474 [3d Dept 2021]). [FN1] Alleging that respondent has remained uncooperative with its investigation of his conduct since his suspension, AGC now moves for his disbarment by order to show cause and affirmation of counsel, and respondent has not responded to AGC's motion.

2025Matter of Fauci , 221 AD3d at 1241-1242; Matter of Cohen , 217 AD3d at 1249).

2025Matter of Fauci , 221 AD3d at 1241-1242; Matter of Cohen , 217 AD3d at 1249).

2024Here, respondent has not responded to AGC's motion in any respect and he has therefore necessarily not invoked any of his available defenses ( see Matter of Jenkins , 222 AD3d 1319, 1320 [3d Dept 2023]).

2024Here, respondent has not responded to AGC's motion and has therefore necessarily not invoked any of his available defenses ( see Matter of Jenkins , 222 AD3d 1319, 1320 [3d Dept 2023]).

2018Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction ( see Matter of Bailey , 145 AD3d 1182, 1182-1183 [2016]; Matter of Steig , 144 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2016]).

2017Accordingly, we grant AGC’s motion and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction (see Matter of Bailey, 145 AD3d 1182, 1182 [2016]; Matter of Steig, 144 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2016]).

2018Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction ( see Matter of Tambolini , 155 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2017]; Matter of Ebrahimzadeh , 140 AD3d 1466, 1466 [2016]).

2018Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and turn to the inquiry of the appropriate discipline to be imposed ( see Matter of Tambolini , 155 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2017]; Matter of Ebrahimzadeh , 140 AD3d 1466, 1466 [2016]).

2018Accordingly, we find that respondent has engaged in conduct that poses an immediate threat to the public interest and, therefore, grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately ( Matter of Humphrey , 151 AD3d 1539, 1540 [2017]; Matter of Croak , 148 AD3d 1451 , 1452 [2017]).

2017Accordingly, we grant AGC’s motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC’s investigation and until further order of this Court (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a] [1], [3]; see also Matter of Croak, 148 AD3d 1451 , 1451-1452 [2017]).

2025Matter of Sobkiewicz , 208 AD3d 938, 939 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Scott , 187 AD3d 1480, 1481 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Petiton , 155 AD3d 118, 120 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of Williams , 148 AD3d 269, 270-271 [2d Dept 2017]).Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion to the extent of striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to June 9, 2022 ( see Matter of Ferriero , 172 AD3d 1698, 1699 [3d Dept 2019]). [FN1] Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2025Matter of Sobkiewicz , 208 AD3d 938, 939 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Scott , 187 AD3d 1480, 1481 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Petiton , 155 AD3d 118, 120 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of Williams , 148 AD3d 269, 270-271 [2d Dept 2017]).Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion to the extent of striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to June 9, 2022 ( see Matter of Ferriero , 172 AD3d 1698 , 1699 [3d Dept 2019]). [FN1] Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2025Respondent's conviction of a New York felony results in his automatic disbarment by operation of law and, for purposes of this proceeding, his plea of guilty serves as the functional equivalent of a conviction ( see Matter of Pastel , 203 AD3d 1306, 1307 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Sherwood , 164 AD3d 1539 , 1539-1540 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Butcher , 153 AD3d 1127, 1127 [3d Dept 2017]; see also Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a], [b], [e]).

2023As we need only perform the ministerial task of confirming respondent's disbarred status ( see Matter of Pastel , 203 AD3d at 1307 ; Matter of Zwijacz , 201 AD3d at 1200 ; Matter of Percoco , 171 AD3d 1450 , 1452 [3d Dept 2019]), we grant AGC's motion and strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to December 5, 2022, the date of his guilty plea.

2025Accordingly, AGC's motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys following his conviction for a felony in this state is "a formality which merely confirms respondent's disbarred status" ( Matter of Brunet , 106 AD3d 1443, 1443 [3d Dept 2013]; see Matter of Werther , 193 AD3d 1228, 1228 [3d Dept 2021]).

2025Accordingly, AGC's motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys following his conviction for a felony in this state is "a formality which merely confirms respondent's disbarred status" ( Matter of Brunet , 106 AD3d 1443 , 1443 [3d Dept 2013]; see Matter of Werther , 193 AD3d 1228, 1228 [3d Dept 2021]).

2025Matter of Sobkiewicz , 208 AD3d 938, 939 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Scott , 187 AD3d 1480, 1481 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Petiton , 155 AD3d 118, 120 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of Williams , 148 AD3d 269, 270-271 [2d Dept 2017]).Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion to the extent of striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to June 9, 2022 ( see Matter of Ferriero , 172 AD3d 1698, 1699 [3d Dept 2019]). [FN1] Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2025Matter of Sobkiewicz , 208 AD3d 938, 939 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Scott , 187 AD3d 1480, 1481 [3d Dept 2020]; Matter of Petiton , 155 AD3d 118, 120 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of Williams , 148 AD3d 269, 270-271 [2d Dept 2017]).Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion to the extent of striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to June 9, 2022 ( see Matter of Ferriero , 172 AD3d 1698 , 1699 [3d Dept 2019]). [FN1] Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2021We find that this last minute attempt at offering minimal compliance does not warrant the denial of [*2]AGC's motion ( see Matter of Burney , 183 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 [2020]; see also Matter of Meltzer , 189 AD3d 80 , 82 [2020]).

2021However, in light of our determination to suspend him for one year for his contemptuous conduct, we also remind respondent that he has an affirmative obligation to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings before AGC regarding the client complaint that precipitated that part of AGC's motion seeking relief pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 ( see Matter of Burney , 183 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007 [2020]).

2018In doing so, we note that, while we may consider the severity of the sanction imposed in Vermont, we are not bound by that determination ( see Matter of Musafiri , 144 AD3d 1387 , 1388 [2016]; Matter of Marshall , 67 AD3d 1122 , 1123 [2009]).

2017Turning to the appropriate discipline to be imposed, having considered the nature of respondent’s misconduct, the discipline imposed in Pennsylvania and his failure to respond to the subject motion, we hold that, in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter others from committing similar misconduct, respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of four years (see Matter of Musafiri, 144 AD3d 1387, 1388 [2016]; Matter of Macchiaverna, 125 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2015]).

2026As AGC possesses broad authority to obtain records and documents in furtherance of its investigative responsibilities (<i>see Matter of Caruso</i>, 205 AD3d 1264, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]), Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 (a) (3) provides that the mere failure to comply with the lawful demand of AGC during its investigation provides a sufficient basis to suspend the attorney (<i>see e.g.

2022Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC's investigation and until further order of this Court ( see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; see also Matter of Caruso , 205 AD3d 1264, 1265 [3d Dept 2022]).