From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Sicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 2005
15 A.D.3d 5 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2003-09487

January 24, 2005.

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), on the ground that he has been convicted of a felony. Respondent was admitted to the bar on March 1, 1989, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. The Grievance Committee has withdrawn its previous application for authorization to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent.

Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn ( Robert J. Saltzman of counsel), for petitioner. Richard N. Maltz, New York City, for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Ritter, Santucci and Smith, JJ. concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT


On July 13, 2004, the respondent pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court, Kings County, to grand larceny in the fourth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.30, a class E felony.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), any person convicted of an offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state shall, upon such conviction, cease to be an attorney and counselor-at-law or to be competent to practice law. Striking an attorney's name from the roll of attorneys after a felony conviction is merely a formal recording of the existing fact of disbarment.

Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law upon his felony conviction is granted, and effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. The Grievance Committee's prior request for authorization to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent is withdrawn.

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Philip E. Sicks, is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Philip E. Sicks, shall 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, effective immediately, the respondent, Philip E. Sicks is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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, Philip E. Sicks, 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).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Sicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 2005
15 A.D.3d 5 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

In the Matter of Sicks

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PHILIP E. SICKS, an Attorney, Respondent. GRIEVANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 24, 2005

Citations

15 A.D.3d 5 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 895

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

Defendant has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential that his claim…