From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rodwin [1st Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 2000
271 A.D.2d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 21, 2000.

May 23, 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 First Judicial Department on December 5, 1955.

Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Before: Hon. Joseph P. Sullivan, Presiding Justice, Eugene Nardelli, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Richard W. Wallach, Israel Rubin, Justices.


Respondent, Richard Rodwin, was admitted to the practice of law in New York by the First Judicial Department on December 5, 1955, and at all times relevant herein has maintained an office for the practice of law within this Department.

In an indictment filed on February 17, 1999, respondent was charged in Supreme Court, New York County, with grand larceny in the first degree and four counts of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law §§ 155.42 and 155.40 (1), respectively, in connection with his alleged theft of client funds in excess of $1,150,000. On March 4, 1999, respondent was suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (iii), on the basis of uncontroverted evidence of serious professional misconduct. (Matter of Rodwin, 253 A.D.2d 67.) On September 14, 1999, respondent pleaded guilty to each of the five felony counts.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that he has been disbarred upon his conviction of a felony as set forth in Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e). It is clear that the crimes of which respondent has been convicted constitute felonies under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e). While respondent has not yet been sentenced, a guilty plea is a sufficient basis for automatic disbarment. Matter of Baum, 258 A.D.2d 83; Matter of David, 145 A.D.2d 150.)

Accordingly, the petition should be granted, respondent disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

All concur.

Order filed.


Summaries of

Matter of Rodwin [1st Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 2000
271 A.D.2d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter of Rodwin [1st Dept 2000

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD RODWIN, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY: DEPARTMENTAL…

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

Date published: May 23, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 396

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Adler

By order of this Court entered November 1, 2001, respondent was suspended from the practice of law on an…

In the Matter of Adelman

Having been convicted of assault in the second degree, a felony within the meaning of Judiciary Law §…