Matter of Kurtz

Full title: In the Matter of RICHARD J. KURTZ a/k/a RICHARD JOSEPH KURTZ (admitted as…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 1999

263 A.D.2d 55 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

698 N.Y.S.2d 29

Opinion

November 9, 1999

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, as Joseph Kurtz, was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on June 19, 1963.

Mady J. Edelstein, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel) for petitioner.

Howard Benjamin, of counsel (Gentile, Brotman Benjamin, attorneys) for respondent.

Hon. JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN, Justice Presiding, PETER TOM, ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, ISRAEL RUBIN, DAVID FRIEDMAN, Justices.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Richard J. Kurtz was admitted to the practice of law by the Second Judicial Department on June 19, 1963, as Joseph Kurtz. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

Respondent was indicted, on November 20, 1998, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, for bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, arising out of his 1993 filing of a sworn petition for bankruptcy wherein he concealed substantial assets owned by him. The indictment also charged respondent with bankruptcy perjury in connection with his oath before a bankruptcy trustee as to the truthfulness of his statements in the petition. On July 13, 1999, respondent pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud under the second count of the indictment. That count alleged that he fraudulently concealed assets in a sworn examination before the bankruptcy trustee, and that he falsely swore that the bankruptcy petition was correct.

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.

All concur.