Two Reasons For Interim Suspension

An interim suspension has been ordered by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department

Complaint

On October 4, 2022, respondent’s client, S.M., filed a complaint with the Committee. S.M. alleged that she retained respondent to represent her in the purchase of a co-op apartment, and she provided the seller’s attorney with a $75,000 down payment. Her application was ultimately rejected. On July 27, 2022, she emailed respondent to inquire about the status of the down payment, and respondent assured her that the money was refundable.

S.M. emailed respondent again on August 9, 2022, and he told her that he confirmed with the seller’s attorney that the check was on its way to his office. On August 13, 2022, S.M. sent another email to respondent, and he replied two days later, stating that he believed the check had arrived at his office and he would send it to her via overnight mail. He did not.

S.M. sent additional emails to respondent on August 23, 25, and 29, 2022. On August 31, 2022, respondent emailed S.M. and told her that he had been in an accident, would be discharged the same day, and would return the money immediately upon his release. He again failed to do so.

S.M. emailed respondent on September 8 and 9, 2022, but he did not reply. On September 10, 2022, S.M. contacted the seller’s attorney, who provided her with a copy of the $75,000 check and proof-of-delivery via FedEx demonstrating that respondent signed for the check on August 11, 2022. The seller’s attorney also provided the Committee with a copy of the front and back of the check, which was payable to S.M. but endorsed to respondent, along with his bank statement indicating the withdrawal of the $75,000.

Basis of interim suspension

First, between November 2022 and February 2024, the Committee has repeatedly directed respondent to submit an answer to S.M.’s complaint and obtained two judicial subpoenas directing him to appear for an EUO at the Committee’s offices. Respondent – despite his awareness of the Committee’s repeated efforts – has failed to do either. Moreover, there is evidence that respondent has attempted to avoid the Committee. His OCA business address was updated three times in less than one year, and one of those addresses was confirmed to not exist. As respondent has repeatedly failed to comply with the Committee’s lawful demands, interim suspension is warranted pursuant to 22 NYCRR §§ 1240.9(a)(1) and (3) (see Matter of Grant, 224 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2024]; Matter of Amankwaa, 221 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2023]).

Second, interim suspension is warranted pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 1240.9(a)(4), as there is “clear and convincing evidence” of respondent’s “willful failure or refusal to pay money owed to a client” (see e.g. Matter of Pierre, 153 AD3d 306 [1st Dept 2017]). By email, respondent admitted to S.M. that the $75,000 check was on its way to his office. He also repeatedly disregarded her numerous requests that he return the down payment. Critically, the seller’s attorney provided S.M. with confirmation that the check was delivered to respondent’s office and provided the Committee with a copy of the front and back of the check, along with his bank statement indicating withdrawal of the funds. The check was payable to S.M., but endorsed to respondent, which S.M. neither authorized nor was aware of.

(Mike Frisch)