Opinion
2013-01978 Attorney Registration No. 1937424 M156140
05-13-2013
In the Matter of Neal Stuart Spector, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; v. Neal Stuart Spector, respondent.
, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA
MARK C. DILLON
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District: (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated January 31, 2013; and (3) to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on July 30, 1984.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), the respondent, Neal Stuart Spector, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the Court; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Neal Stuart Spector, shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Neal Stuart Spector, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against Neal Stuart Spector, based on the verified petition dated January 31, 2013; and it is further,
ORDERED that Robert A. Green, Chief Counsel, Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, 150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent, Neal Stuart Spector, shall serve a copy of his answer to the petition upon the Grievance Committee and the Special Referee, and file the original with the Court; and it is further,
ORDERED that the issues raised by the verified petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Lewis L. Douglass, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, 166-25 Powells Boulevard, Whitestone, N.Y. 11357, as Special Referee to hear and report, together with his findings on the issues, and to submit a report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the respondent, Neal Stuart Spector, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).
We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District.
By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 8, 2011, the respondent was directed to pay a sanction in the amount of $250 to the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (hereinafter the Lawyer's Fund) in connection with his appeal of a matter in which he was the plaintiff. That sanction was issued as a result of the respondent's failure to appear at a CAMP conference on October 3, 2011.
By letter dated March 6, 2012, Timothy J. O'Sullivan, Executive Director of the Lawyer's Fund, advised this Court that the respondent had not paid the sanction. The respondent was copied on that letter at the office address listed for him with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA). Thereafter, by letter dated April 2, 2012, this Court notified the Grievance Committee of the foregoing, and referred the matter to the Grievance Committee for appropriate action.
By letter dated April 10, 2012, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent's then-counsel, Samuel Reiff, that a complaint and investigation had been opened, and that the respondent's written answer was due within 10 days. No response was received. In a further letter to Mr. Reiff dated May 14, 2012, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, the Grievance Committee advised Mr. Reiff that no response had been received to its April 10, 2012, letter. The Grievance Committee stated, further, that the respondent's failure to cooperate constituted professional misconduct, independent of the merits of the underlying case, and once again requested that the respondent submit a written answer within 10 days. Although postal records reflect that the Grievance Committee's May 14, 2012, certified letter was delivered on May 15, 2012, no response was received. By letter dated June 6, 2012, the Grievance Committee once again wrote to Mr. Reiff, via certified mail, return receipt requested, advising him that no response had been received to the its prior correspondence. The Grievance Committee directed that the respondent submit a written answer within 10 days, and advised that his failure to do so would result in the Grievance Committee utilizing "all legal remedies available to compel [the respondent's] cooperation." Although postal records reflect that the Grievance Committee's certified letter dated June 6, 2012, was delivered on June 7, 2012, no response was received.
By letter dated June 21, 2012, sent to the respondent's office address, the Lawyer's Fund advised that they had not received the court-ordered sanction. At or about that time, the Court notified the Grievance Committee of the respondent's continued failure to comply with the sanction imposed.
A Judicial Subpoena was served upon the respondent's office on July 17, 2012, directing the respondent to appear at the Grievance Committee's office on July 24, 2012, for an examination under oath (hereinafter EUO). On or about that date, the Grievance Committee received, via express mail, from the respondent, a postal money order in the amount of $250. By letter dated July 19, 2012, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, the Grievance Committee returned the postal money order to the respondent, directed him to pay the Lawyer's Fund, as required by this Court's order, and advised him that he was still required to appear for the EUO on July 24, 2012, pursuant to subpoena. The respondent failed to appear.
By letter dated July 24, 2012, the Grievance Committee sent a letter to Mr. Reiff, detailing the respondent's history of failing to cooperate. The Grievance Committee requested that Mr. Reiff arrange for the respondent's EUO at its office within five days. By letter dated July 27, 2012, Mr. Reiff advised the Grievance Committee that he was no longer representing the respondent. Annexed to his letter was a copy of a letter to the respondent, advising him to contact the Grievance Committee to arrange for his EUO. The respondent failed to contact the Committee.
By letter dated August 16, 2012, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's office address, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that, if he failed to contact the Committee, it would have no choice but to seek his immediate suspension from the practice of law. Postal records reflect that the letter was delivered but no response was received. On September 4, 2012, and September 5, 2012, Grievance Committee Chief Counsel Robert A. Green left two telephone messages requesting that the respondent call him. No response was received.
Thereafter, the Grievance Committee's investigator visited the respondent's office, and was advised that the respondent had abandoned the office several months earlier. In the interim, legal mail was "piling up" on the respondent's desk.
By letter dated January 4, 2013, addressed to the home address listed for the respondent with OCA, the respondent was advised of the Grievance's Committee's efforts to contact him, and he was requested to arrange for his EUO at the its office within five days. The Grievance Committee's investigator delivered the letter to the respondent's home address on January 10, 2013, and affixed it to the door. No response was received.
On or about January 29, 2013, the Grievance Committee received a further complaint against the respondent from Dolores A. Young, alleging that the respondent could not be located and that Young had received no communication from the respondent, concerning a civil matter she retained him to prosecute. By letter dated February 6, 2013, sent to the respondent's home address, the respondent was notified that the Young complaint had been received and opened for investigation. Although the respondent was requested to answer the allegations of the Young complaint within 10 days, no response was received.
The respondent has neither opposed the motion nor submitted any response to it.
Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), pending further order of this Court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.
ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court