Matter of Pomerantz

Matter of Pomerantz 2018 NY Slip Op 06848 Decided on September 25, 2018 Appellate Division, First 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 September 25, 2018 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department
Dianne T. Renwick, Justice Presiding,
Judith J. Gische
Peter Tom
Richard T. Andrias
Barbara R. Kapnick ,Justices.
M-3688

[*1]In the Matter of Mark S. Pomerantz, a suspended attorney: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Mark S. Pomerantz, Respondent.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Mark S. Pomerantz, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on February 26, 1986.

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Respondent Mark S. Pomerantz was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 26, 1986, under the name Mark Steven Pomerantz. Respondent's last known business address was located within the First Judicial Department.

By motion dated November 1, 2017, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) sought respondent's immediate suspension from the practice of law pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), and Judiciary Law § 468-a(2), based upon his failure to comply with a lawful demand of the Court or Committee, other uncontested evidence of professional misconduct, and his failure to register with and inform the Office of Court Administration of changes to his attorney information. The Committee's notice of motion included the following language:

"PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), an attorney who is suspended under 1240.9(a) and who has failed to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension may be disbarred without further notice."

In accordance with Judiciary Law § 90(6) and 22 NYCRR 1240.9, on October 12, 2017 the Committee obtained permission from this Court to serve respondent with the suspension motion and any additional filings in the case by substituted service. Respondent was duly served with the suspension motion but did not submit a response.

By order entered January 11, 2018, this Court granted the Committee's motion to the extent of suspending respondent, effective immediately, from the practice of law under Judiciary Law § 468-a(2) and 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), and until further order of the Court. This Court found an immediate suspension was warranted because respondent had not responded to numerous communications from the Committee requesting that he address the allegations in a complaint filed by his former wife involving his failure to comply with the financial obligations contained in their divorce proceeding, did not appear before the Committee pursuant to subpoena demanding his appearance, and was delinquent in his attorney registration and failed to notify the Office of Court Administration of changes to his telephone numbers and addresses as required.

By a notice of entry dated January 19, 2018, the Committee served respondent with a copy of this Court's order of suspension. The certified mailing was returned to the Committee marked "Return to Sender Unclaimed Unable to Forward" but the tracking record for the copy sent by first class mail shows that it was delivered on January 22, 2018.

The Committee now seeks an on order disbarring respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), on the grounds that he has been suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3) and has neither responded to or appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension. Respondent was served with the motion but no response has been filed with the Court.

The motion should be granted inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since January 11, 2018, the date of respondent's suspension, and he has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings (see Matter of Freidman, 162 AD3d 14 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Spencer, 161 AD3d 44 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Hidalgo, 158 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2018]).

Accordingly, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately.

All concur.

Order filed. [September 25, 2018]

Ordered that the petition is granted to the extent of disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), and striking his name from the roll of attorneys in the state of New York, effective the date hereof.