Matter of Mannan

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF MUJIB T. MANNAN, a suspended attorney: DEPARTMENTAL…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 2000

265 A.D.2d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

704 N.Y.S.2d 472

Opinion

March 16, 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 February 27, 1985. By order of this Court entered on October 7, 1997 (M-4148), respondent was suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law until the further order of this Court.

Andral N. Bratton, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel) for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Hon. Joseph P. Sullivan, Presiding Justice, Eugene Nardelli, Milton L. Williams, Peter Tom, David Friedman, Justices.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Mujib T. Mannan was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 27, 1985, and at all times relevant to this proceeding he has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

By order entered October 7, 1997, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months on the basis of his neglect of four client matters (Disciplinary Rule 1-102[A][8] and 6-101[A] [3]), with reinstatement conditioned on his repayment of unearned fees to three of those clients. Respondent has failed to file an affidavit of compliance with our order of suspension (22 NYCRR 603.13 [f]). Moreover, respondent pleaded guilty on April 5, 1999, in Supreme Court, Queens County, to one count of practicing law while under suspension, in violation of Judiciary Law § 486, which conviction he has not reported to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee ( 22 NYCRR 603.12 [f]).

The Committee's present motion to disbar respondent for failure to comply with the terms of our suspension order and for willfully engaging in the unauthorized practice of law has not been answered by respondent.

Accordingly, on the basis of these uncontested facts (Matter of Anderson, 180 A.D.2d 146), the motion to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys in this State, effective immediately, should be granted.

All concur.