Opinion
10-27-2016
In the Matter of Benjamin YU, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Benjamin Yu, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Benjamin Yu, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on October 4, 2004.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM.Respondent Benjamin Yu was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 4, 2004. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On May 31, 2016, in Supreme Court, New York County, respondent was convicted, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 105.10 [1] ), a class E felony; two counts of bribery in the second degree (Penal Law § 200.03 ), a class C felony; and 13 counts of rewarding official misconduct in the second degree (Penal Law § 200.20 ), a class E felony. Respondent's conviction stemmed from his paying an employee of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency to persuade criminal defendants to retain respondent as their attorney. On August 17, 2016, respondent was sentenced to 3 to 9 years in prison; he remains free on bail pending appeal.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys under 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) (Matter of Morrissey, 72 A.D.3d 255, 898 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.2010] ; Matter of Rodwin, 271 A.D.2d 167, 709 N.Y.S.2d 396 [1st Dept.2000] ). Respondent's counsel was served with this motion, but neither counsel nor respondent has appeared or submitted a response to this petition.A conviction of “any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state” (Judiciary Law § 90[4][e] ) results in automatic disbarment by operation of law (see Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) ; Matter of Ogihara, 121 A.D.3d 47, 989 N.Y.S.2d 853 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of McLean, 113 A.D.3d 89, 975 N.Y.S.2d 666 [1st Dept.2013] ). Moreover, attorneys who have been convicted of the same felonies as respondent have been disbarred (see e.g. Matter of Margulies, 93 A.D.3d 145, 940 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept.2012] ; see also Matter of Headley, 123 A.D.3d 89, 992 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2d Dept.2014] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's petition should be granted, and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to May 31, 2016.KARLA MOSKOWITZ, Justice Presiding, PAUL G. FEINMAN, JUDITH J. GISCHE, BARBARA R. KAPNICK, ELLEN GESMER, Justices, concur.