Essentially Similar

A Virginia drug distribution conviction resulted in an attorney’s automatic disbarment by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department.

A felony committed in another jurisdiction need not be a mirror image of a New York felony, but it must have “essential similarity” (Matter of Margiotta , 60 NY2d 147, 150). A conviction of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of Virginia Code Annotated § 18.2-248, [*2]has been held to be “essentially similar” to the New York offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law § 220.16(1) (see Matter of Ekperigin , 304 AD2d 133). Accordingly, the offense of which the respondent was convicted in Virginia constitutes a felony within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e).

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District now moves to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law based on her conviction of a felony. In response, the respondent states that she was unaware of her obligation to notify this Court of her conviction, as she relied upon the advice of her Virginia counsel that New York would be automatically notified by the court in Virginia of the conviction. Further, she avers that she has not practiced law since her plea, and she requests that the date of her disbarment be effective as of the date of her plea, to wit, October 27, 2009.

By virtue of her conviction of a felony, the respondent was automatically disbarred and ceased to be an attorney pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a).

(Mike Frisch)