Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Freidman (In re Freidman)

Full title: In the MATTER OF Evgeny A. FREIDMAN, a suspended attorney: Attorney…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 1, 2018

162 A.D.3d 14 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 3116

72 N.Y.S.3d 825

Opinion

M–602

05-01-2018

In the MATTER OF Evgeny A. FREIDMAN, a suspended attorney: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Evgeny A. Freidman, Respondent.

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

Rolando T. Acosta, Presiding Justice, John W. Sweeny, Jr., Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Troy K. Webber, Justices.

PER CURIAM

Respondent Evgeny A. Freidman was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on April 14, 1997. At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained a business office within the First Department.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(b) disbarring respondent, arguing that since he was suspended under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3), and has failed to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension, he may be barred without further notice.

Respondent was served with the motion by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested at the same three addresses where he was served with the notice of entry, but no response has been filed with the Court.

The motion should be granted inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since July 13, 2017, the date of respondent's suspension, and he has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings (see Matter of Hidalgo, 158 A.D.3d 1, 66 N.Y.S.3d 139 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Antwi, 157 A.D.3d 55, 65 N.Y.S.3d 691 [1st Dept. 2017] ).

Accordingly, 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.

All concur.