In re Goldman

142 A.D.3d 274

36 N.Y.S.3d 395 (Mem)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05757

In the Matter of Richard I. GOLDMAN, an attorney and counselor-at-law.

Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner;

Richard I. Goldman, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 1620954).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 10, 2016.

APPLICATION by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3 of the Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys, to impose discipline on the respondent based upon disciplinary action taken against him by the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in that state. The respondent was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1975. The respondent was admitted to the New York Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 11, 1977.

Mitchell T. Borkowsky, Hauppauge NY (Carolyn Mazzu Genovesi of counsel), for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

By judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, entered September 3, 2015, the respondent was disbarred and his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys in that state, based upon his affidavit of resignation. In his affidavit of resignation, the respondent acknowledged, inter alia, as follows:

“I am aware that there is currently pending an investigation into allegations that I engaged in misconduct, including allegations that, in connection with a conveyancing account I used primarily for the deposit of funding proceeds and the payment of disbursements required to complete each real estate transaction, in 2013 I misused client funds by writing checks payable to myself or to cash, unrelated to any real estate transaction, with temporary deprivation resulting, in violation of Mass R. Prof. C. 1.15(b) and (c) and 8.4(c) and (h).”

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District personally served the respondent with a notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3 informing him of his right, within 20 days, to file a verified statement setting forth any of the defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline enumerated in 22 NYCRR 691.3(c). Although duly served by the Grievance Committee on April 1, 2016, the respondent has not filed a verified statement, nor has he requested additional time in which to do so. Since he has neither asserted any defenses nor demanded a hearing, there is no impediment to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

In view of the discipline imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, we find that reciprocal discipline is warranted. Accordingly, the ...