From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Schlacter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 22, 1999
259 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

July 22, 1999.

Disciplinary Proceedings instituted by the Departmental Discplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on June 25, 1952, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department.

Raymond Vallejo of counsel ( Thomas J. Cahill, attorney), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

ROSENBERGER, J. P., WILLIAMS, TOM, WALLACE and BUCKLEY, JJ., concur.


OPINION ORDER


Respondent, Irwin D. Schlacter, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 25, 1952. At all times relevant to the instant proceeding, he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

An indictment was filed against respondent in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging him with two counts of racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961, and eight counts of conspiracy to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On December 4, 1998, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On March 22, 1999, respondent was sentenced to 37 months in prison.

Respondent admitted that he conspired with members of the Luchese crime family to commit extortion, as that term is defined in the Hobbs Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 1951 [b]). At his plea allocution, respondent admitted that in 1996 he and others conspired to obtain payments from garment center businesses and those businesses were being induced by threats of economic harm and labor unrest.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b). The Committee is correct in its contention that automatic disbarment under section 90 Jud. (4) (b) is the appropriate sanction, since the crime underlying respondent's conspiracy conviction, the Federal felony of unlawfully affecting commerce by extortion ( 18 U.S.C. § 1951), is essentially similar to the New York felony of larceny by extortion (Penal Law § 155.05 [e]; see, Matter of Margiotta, 60 N.Y.2d 147).

Accordingly, respondent ceased to be an attorney upon his Federal conviction and the petition to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law should be granted.

Petition granted, and the name of respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York forthwith.


Summaries of

Matter of Schlacter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 22, 1999
259 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Schlacter

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of IRWIN D. SCHLACTER, an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL…

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

Date published: Jul 22, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 583

Citing Cases

In Matter of Zisselman

At his plea allocution, respondent admitted receiving approximately $1.5 million dollars, which he split with…