Opinion
October 12, 2000.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on December 17, 1958.
Raymond Vallejo, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel), for petitioner.
Hal R. Lieberman, of counsel (Beldock Levine Hoffman LLP, attorneys), for respondent.
Before: Milton L. Williams, Justice Presiding, Peter Tom, Israel Rubin, David B. Saxe, John Buckely, Justices.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Respondent Elihu Fier was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on December 17, 1958, and at all times relevant to this proceeding has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
In connection with statements made to the Internal Revenue Service regarding tax payment discrepancies, respondent was found guilty, after a jury trial in the United States Court for the Southern District of New York, of two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, for which he was sentenced to probation and a $5,000 fine. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law 90[a], on the ground that he was automatically disbarred as a result of his conviction of a Federal felony that would constitute a felony if committed under New York law. A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is analogous to the New York felony of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35; Matter of Walker, 257 A.D.2d 315; Matter of Fanta, 242 A.D.2d 172). The present Federal charges are "essentially similar"; to conduct proscribed under the New York statute (Matter of Margiotta, 60 N.Y.2d 147, 149), especially insofar as respondent, by knowingly altering his check, knowingly created a written statement containing false information that he then proffered to the IRS in order to deceive, and thus defraud, the government agency (see, Matter of Silverblatt, 113 A.D.2d 1; Matter of Marilao, 188 A.D.2d 146, 148-149 appeal dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 747), constituting an analog of the New York felony.
Accordingly, the petition to strike his name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.
All concur.