The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department has ordered a two-year prospective suspension of a convicted attorney
As revealed in the plea minutes, from in and about September 2007 to April 2008, the respondent “engage[d] in conduct, believing it to be probable, that [he was] rendering aid to . . . Boris Matsokhin and others, to aid such person to commit a felony, including grand larceny in the second degree and residential mortgage fraud.” More specifically, the respondent provided false documentation, including HUD-1 forms, to facilitate numerous fraudulent mortgage transactions.
In exchange for his cooperation with the Suffolk County District Attorney the respondent was permitted to plead guilty to misdemeanor offenses. In a report dated September 6, 2017, the Special Referee noted, with regard to mitigation: “Beyond any doubt the respondent is a well-respected religiously participating person who in his community . . . does charitable work and pro bono service. He is a family man.” The Special Referee concluded: “Mr. Shore is aware of his mistake and accepted responsibility for it. He has cooperated with the government and leniency . . . is appropriate.”
The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee. In response to the motion, the respondent asks for leniency, pointing to the mitigating evidence presented, which includes his good character and high moral standards, his reputation for honesty and integrity, his prodigious commitment to charity and helping others, his devotion to family, his limited role as the closing attorney in the subject real estate transactions, and his cooperation with the Suffolk County District Attorney that resulted in the successful investigation and prosecution of other mortgage fraud crimes. The respondent specifically requests that the time served under his interim suspension be deemed sufficient discipline for his offenses.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned mitigation, including the respondent’s remorse and the absence of a prior disciplinary history, the respondent’s transgressions, while limited as far as his role in the mortgage fraud scheme, were repeated and significant. He was initially charged with 17 felony counts, but under a plea agreement with law enforcement authorities, the respondent was permitted to plead to only misdemeanor offenses in exchange for his cooperation in assisting the authorities with other arrests and prosecutions. The scope and magnitude of the respondent’s wrongdoing is reflected in his plea of guilty to 11 counts of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree and 6 counts of petit larceny. The sheer number of offenses distinguishes this matter from Matter of Lovegrove (136 AD3d 10), relied on by the respondent. The respondent, an experienced attorney who was meticulous in his handling of closings, should have known that the subject real estate transactions were less than bona fide.
(Mike Frisch)