Opinion
2021-66963 Motion 2020-05628
06-02-2021
In the Matter of Arnold William Blatt, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Arnold William Blatt, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2071736)
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District to immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2) and (5), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, and to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee, to hear and report. The Grievance Committee served the respondent with a notice of petition dated July 22, 2020, and a verified petition dated July 16, 2020, and the respondent filed a verified answer dated July 28, 2020. Subsequently, the Grievance Committee filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated August 17, 2020, which was not challenged by the respondent. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 26, 1959.
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 1240.9(a)(2) and (5), the respondent, Arnold William Blatt, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of this Court; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Arnold William Blatt, shall promptly comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); 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, Arnold William Blatt, 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 if the respondent, Arnold William Blatt, 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 1240.15(f); and it is further, ORDERED that the issues raised are referred to the Honorable Sondra M. Miller, c/o McCarthy Fingar, LLP, 11 Martine Avenue, 12th Floor, White Plains, NY 10606, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and the report, which contains her findings on the issues and charges, to be submitted within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.
Discussion
We find, prima facie, that the respondent, Arnold William Blatt, is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on the uncontroverted evidence that he violated the rules governing the maintenance of an attorney's IOLA account by misappropriating client funds entrusted to him, failing to maintain required bank and bookkeeping records, and failing to properly title his IOLA account.
The Grievance Committee initiated a sua sponte investigation against the respondent after receiving notice that a check drawn on the IOLA account at Manufacturer's & Traders Trust Bank (hereinafter M & T Bank), captioned as "Arnold W. Blatt, IOLA Account," account number ending in 5173, (hereinafter the IOLA account), had been dishonored. Specifically, the IOLA account check no. 3124 made payable to Sandra Rodriquez in the amount of $4,750 was dishonored on March 20, 2019, as there was an insufficient balance in the IOLA account.
By letter dated April 24, 2019, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that a sua sponte complaint had been initiated based upon notice that IOLA account check no. 3124 had been dishonored, and asked him to provide a written explanation of why that check had been dishonored, along with complete copies of the IOLA account's banking and bookkeeping records for the six-month period preceding the date when check 3124 was dishonored. The respondent submitted an answer, dated May 9, 2019, confirming that he had received a down payment of $10,500 in connection with a sale between Sandra Rodriguez and Norris Bernard and Ralston Bernard, and deposited that check in the IOLA account. As to the Grievance Committee's records request, while the respondent provided copies of checks, most were illegible in whole or in part, and he failed to include any deposit tickets. The respondent also failed to explain why the IOLA account did not contain sufficient funds to pay check no. 3124.
In response to a further request from the Grievance Committee, the respondent provided some checks, and advised, inter alia, that he still did not understand why the IOLA account contained insufficient funds when check no. 3124 was originally presented for payment. He further claimed that the deposit tickets provided by M & T Bank were illegible, so he stopped saving them.
Thereafter, the Grievance Committee obtained records for the IOLA account, pursuant to subpoena, from M & T Bank, and conducted an audit and review for the period from October 1, 2018, through April 30, 2019.
The respondent appeared before the Grievance Committee on October 15, 2019, for an examination under oath (hereinafter the EUO). During the EUO, the respondent testified that he had received the $10,500 down payment for the Rodriquez to Bernard real estate transaction. The respondent also testified that following the closing, he retained $5,000 in escrow in the IOLA account in connection with a lien. According to a closing statement, the closing occurred on January 22, 2019. The bank records for the IOLA account confirm that between the date of the closing and the date when check no. 3124 was dishonored, the balance in the IOLA account fell to $4,812.66 on January 25, 2019, $3,946.66 from January 28, 2019, through February 24, 2019, and $3,946.66 from March 1, 2019, through March 20, 2019. The respondent was attempting to return the balance of the escrow when he issued check no. 3124.
The respondent testified that he replaced the subject check after it was dishonored by disbursing two checks to Rodriguez: (1) check no. 3129 for $2,750 dated April 2, 2019, from the IOLA account; and (2) check no. 179 for $2,000 dated April 1, 2019, from a joint checking account with his wife, at TD Bank, account number ending in 6072. When questioned about why funds were not deposited in an account bearing his own name, he testified that he began depositing legal fees in the joint checking account because he stopped using his operating account after a judgment was entered against him in a malpractice action unrelated to the Rodriguez matter, entitled Betz v Blatt, commenced in Supreme Court Westchester County, under Index No. 58938/2011, and he had no money to satisfy the judgment.
Additionally, the respondent admitted that he did not properly title his IOLA account and did not maintain complete bookkeeping records, including maintaining client ledgers.
Conclusion
We find that the Grievance Committee has sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent poses an immediate threat to the public interest for his conduct in violating the rules governing the maintenance of an attorney's IOLA account, including his misappropriation of the funds that he was required to maintain in escrow in the Rodriquez to Bernard real property transaction, and his failure to maintain required bank and bookkeeping records.
Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2) and (5), pending further order of this Court, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.
LASALLE, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, CHAMBERS, and MILLER, JJ., concur.