Grounds for automatic disbarment are shown in those cases where an attorney is convicted of a federal felony which would constitute a New York felony (Judiciary Law § 90 [b], [e]), even if the foreign felony is not a "mirror image" of the New York statute ( Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147, 150). We have previously held that a conviction for perjury under 18 USC § 1621 is "essentially similar" to the New York felony of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law § 210.15; see Matter of Bernstein, 263 AD2d 100, 101; Matter of Frankel, 189 AD2d 261). Furthermore, respondent's securities fraud conviction under 15 USC § 78j (b) has also been held to be a proper predicate for automatic disbarment as it is "essentially similar" to the felony of fraudulent securities transactions in violation of General Business Law § 352-c (5) and (6) ( see Matter of Marks, 4 AD3d 11, 12). Accordingly, upon his felony conviction, respondent ceased to be an attorney authorized to practice law in this state ( Matter of David, 145 AD2d 150).
In the course of the SEC's investigation, respondent testified falsely in a deposition before the SEC which perjury respondent admitted in pleading guilty to count three. Automatic disbarment under § 90 (4)(b) is appropriate since the Federal felony of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 is essentially similar to the New York felony of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law 210.15; see Matter of Frankel, 189 A.D.2d 261). As respondent ceased to be an attorney upon his federal conviction, the petition to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted. All concur.
In the course of the SEC's investigation, respondent testified falsely in a deposition before the SEC which perjury respondent admitted in pleading guilty to count three. Automatic disbarment under § 90(4)(b) is appropriate since the Federal felony of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 is essentially similar to the New York felony of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law 210.15; see Matter of Frankel, 189 A.D.2d 261). As respondent ceased to be an attorney upon his federal conviction, the petition to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted. All concur.
In the course of the SEC's investigation, respondent testified falsely in a deposition before the SEC which perjury respondent admitted in pleading guilty to count three. Automatic disbarment under § 90 (4)(b) is appropriate since the Federal felony of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 is essentially similar to the New York felony of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law 210.15; see Matter of Frankel, 189 A.D.2d 261). As respondent ceased to be an attorney upon his federal conviction, the petition to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted. Respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, as indicated.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now moves for an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant toJudiciary Law § 90(4)(b). Since these offenses are essentially similar to the New York felonies of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (Penal Law 175.35) as well as perjury in the first degree (Penal Law 210.15), his conviction warrants automatic disbarment as of the date of the conviction (Matter of Frankel, 189 A.D.2d 261). Accordingly, the petition to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.