Mtr. of Gross

Full title: In the Matter of BRYON W. GROSS, an Attorney, Respondent. GRIEVANCE…

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

Date published: Sep 22, 2006

34 A.D.3d 23 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 6734

824 N.Y.S.2d 825

Opinion

September 22, 2006.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS instituted by the Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the bar on January 11, 1999 at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department.

Andrea E. Tomaino, Associate Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee, Rochester, for petitioner. Bryon W. Gross, Rochester, respondent pro se.

Before: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, REHOE, MARTOCHE and SMITH, JJ., concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 11, 1999, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rochester. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with misconduct arising from his two convictions of driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition and raising, in mitigation, his alcoholism.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (3) ( 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3]) — engaging in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; and

DR 1-102 (a) (5) ( 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) — engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Additionally, by failing to report his first conviction of driving while intoxicated to this Court, respondent violated Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (c).

We have considered, in mitigation, respondent's admitted alcoholism for which he is currently in treatment. Additionally, we note that respondent has an otherwise unblemished record and that his misconduct was unrelated to his practice of law. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured on condition that he agrees to continue in treatment for his alcoholism for a period of 24 months. In the event that respondent fails to continue in treatment or commits additional misconduct during that period, the Grievance Committee shall immediately apply for an order returning the proceeding to this Court for imposition of appropriate discipline ( see Matter of Huyck, 207 AD2d 88; Matter of Reichert, 205 AD2d 5).

Order of censure entered.