Matter of Lisi

Annotate this Case
Matter of Lisi 2012 NY Slip Op 03192 Decided on April 24, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Per Curiam Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 24, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PETER B. SKELOS
MARK C. DILLON
JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
2011-07456

[*1]In the Matter of Brandon Lisi, admitted as Brandon Giel Lisi, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Brandon Lisi, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4451225)

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4), upon his conviction of a felony. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 16, 2008, under the name Brandon Giel Lisi.


Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Myron C. Martynetz of
counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION & ORDER

PER CURIAM.On July 29, 2011, in the County Court, Suffolk County, before the Honorable James F.X. Doyle, the respondent was convicted of two counts of grand larceny in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.42, a class B felony, and one count of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.40, a class C felony. The respondent, who has not yet been sentenced, was convicted for his role in a mortgage fraud scheme. Although served with a copy of this motion, the respondent has neither submitted a response nor requested additional time in which to submit a response.

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

Accordingly, the motion to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b), upon his conviction of a felony, is granted, to reflect the respondent's automatic disbarment on July 29, 2011, and his proffered resignation from the New York State Bar is rejected.
MASTRO, A.P.J., RIVERA, SKELOS, DILLON and COHEN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), the respondent, Brandon Lisi, admitted as Brandon Giel Lisi, is disbarred, effective July 29, 2011, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Brandon Lisi, admitted as Brandon Giel Lisi, shall comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys [*2](see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Brandon Lisi, admitted as Brandon Giel Lisi, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee or 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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Brandon Lisi, admitted as Brandon Giel Lisi, 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 his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f); and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent's proffered resignation from the New York State Bar is rejected.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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.