From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Markovitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
218 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 1, 1996

Raymond Vallejo of counsel (Hal R. Lieberman, attorney), for petitioner.

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


Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in this State in 1982, at the Second Judicial Department. He has maintained an office for such practice within the First Department at all times relevant to these proceedings.

In July 1992 respondent entered a plea of guilty, in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, in satisfaction of a multicount indictment which additionally charged filing of false statements with a government agency. He was sentenced, on January 5, 1993, to five years' probation (including six months in a community correction center) and fined $50,050. On July 8, 1993, this Court suspended respondent from practice for this "serious crime," pending further disciplinary proceedings ( 191 A.D.2d 116). It is conceded that respondent learned of this interim sanction on July 17, 1993.

Respondent was accused of conspiracy to defraud the Immigration and Naturalization Service by seeking to effect changes to the immigration status of clients based upon sham marriages. Whereas the indictment charged participation in this activity over the course of one year, the Hearing Panel found that such conduct actually extended over a period of three years. The point is that the criminal activity was not an isolated incident; indeed, respondent was involved with 47 such sham marriages, netting him over $40,000 in fees.

The Hearing Panel has recommended a sanction of suspension from practice for four years, retroactive to the date he learned of his interim suspension, or for the duration of respondent's probation (without leave for earlier reinstatement should the period of probation be reduced), whichever is longer, and the parties agree. In light of respondent's extended course of conduct and the absence of mitigating factors, we believe this sanction is appropriate ( cf., Matter of Siwulec, 113 A.D.2d 250).

Accordingly, the Hearing Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are confirmed, and respondent is suspended from the practice of law for four years, effective July 17, 1993, or for the duration of his Federal probation, whichever is longer.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WALLACH, KUPFERMAN, ROSS and MAZZARELLI, JJ., concur.

Motion granted, the Hearing Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law confirmed, and respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective as of July 17, 1993, for a period of four years, or for the duration of his Federal probation, whichever is longer, and until the further order of this Court.


Summaries of

Matter of Markovitch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
218 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Matter of Markovitch

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL MARKOVITCH, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent…

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1996

Citations

218 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 130

Citing Cases

Matter of Minkel

The Committee supports respondent's motion, but takes no position as to the recommended sanction and urges…

In the Matter of Hanna

That the crime of which respondent stands convicted is a misdemeanor does not limit the sanction; indeed, an…