Matter of Delgado
Annotate this Case[*1] In the Matter of Maureen Elizabeth Delgado, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
Second Department, June 8, 2010
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Rita E. Adler, Hauppauge (Daniel M. Mitola of counsel), for petitioner.
{**76 AD3d at 65} OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 23, 2008, that branch of the motion of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter Grievance Committee), which was for the appointment of a qualified medical expert to examine the respondent to determine if she was incapacitated from practicing law by reason of medical illness was granted, and the Grievance Committee was directed, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.13 (b) (1), to arrange for an expeditious examination of the respondent within 30 days. The balance of the Grievance Committee's motion, which sought an order appointing a conservator to inventory the respondent's files and, if it was concluded that the respondent was not incapacitated from practicing law or that a medical exam was not warranted, suspending her pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4 (l) (1), was denied with leave to renew after receipt of the medical expert's report. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 22, 2009, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4 (l) (1) (i) and (iii), based upon her professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on the petition dated July 15, 2009, the respondent was directed to serve and file an answer to the petition, and the issues were referred to John P. Clarke, as Special Referee to hear and report.
The respondent's delinquent status with respect to her biennial registration fees for the periods 2001-2002, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 prompted inquiries and a sua sponte investigation by the Grievance Committee. Despite repeated requests for her to reregister, she failed to comply and/or cooperate with the Grievance Committee. Unsubstantiated claims by the respondent that she suffered from medical illness resulted in the decision and order dated July 23, 2008 directing her examination by a [*2]qualified medical expert to determine if she was incapacitated due to medical illness. The respondent was personally served with the order dated July 23, 2008. She failed to cooperate with respect to scheduling and attending a medical examination, and further failed to respond to the Grievance Committee's inquiries regarding the same. As a result, the respondent was never examined.
On August 10, 2009, the respondent was personally served with the Grievance Committee's order to show cause seeking{**76 AD3d at 66} her suspension from the practice of law, and authorization to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against her based on the verified petition dated July 15, 2009 containing three charges of professional misconduct. On the same date, the respondent was personally served with the petition. The respondent did not submit any opposition to the motion.
By decision and order of this Court dated October 22, 2009, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law pending further order of the Court, and the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against her. By the same order, the respondent was directed to serve and file an answer to the petition with 20 days after service upon her of the decision and order dated October 22, 2009.
On November 2, 2009, the respondent was personally served with a copy of the decision and order dated October 22, 2009.
To date, the respondent has neither answered the petition nor asked for an extension of time in which to serve an answer.
The Grievance Committee moves for an order adjudicating the respondent in default, based upon her failure to answer the petition within the time frame set forth by the Court in its decision and order dated October 22, 2009, and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and appropriate.
On December 16, 2009, the respondent was served with a copy of the Grievance Committee's motion.
To date, the respondent has neither responded nor requested additional time in which to respond to the motion.
Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, the charges in the petition are deemed established and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred on default and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.
Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Rivera, Skelos and Eng, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the petitioner's motion is granted upon the respondent's default; and it is further,
Ordered that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Maureen Elizabeth Delgado, is disbarred, and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent, Maureen Elizabeth Delgado, shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,{**76 AD3d at 67}
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, Maureen Elizabeth Delgado, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that if the respondent, Maureen Elizabeth Delgado, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10 (f).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
