Matter of Pomper

Matter of Pomper 2022 NY Slip Op 04173 Decided on June 29, 2022 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 June 29, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
MARK C. DILLON
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
BETSY BARROS
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2021-02031

[*1]In the Matter of Neal Meredith Pomper, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 1726363)

The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 6, 1981. By order to show cause dated April 20, 2021, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made and entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 imposing discipline upon him for the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by an order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey filed October 21, 2020.

Courtny Osterling, White Plains, NY (Antonia Cipollone of counsel), for Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District.

PER CURIAM.

OPINION & ORDER

By order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey filed October 21, 2020, the respondent, under the name Neal M. Pomper, was suspended from the practice of law in New Jersey for a period of two years, retroactive to September 18, 2019, the date of his temporary suspension.

The Stipulation

The respondent and the Office of Attorney Ethics (hereinafter OAE) executed a stipulation providing in relevant part, as follows: The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New Jersey, under the name Neal M. Pomper, in 1982. The respondent's disciplinary history in New Jersey consists of a private reprimand in 1986, an admonition in 2004, and a censure [FN1] in 2009 for assisting his paralegal in the unauthorized practice of law (In re Pomper, 197 NJ 500, 964 A2d 299). On September 18, 2019, the respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law based on the misconduct underlying this matter (In re Pomper, 239 NJ 566, 218 A3d 804), as set forth below.

The respondent stipulated to violating New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter referred as NJ RPC) and New Jersey Rules of Court (hereinafter rule), namely, NJ RPC 1.15(a) (commingling), (d) and rule 1:21-6 (record keeping), NJ RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects), and (c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). The basis for the respondent's violations stemmed from his conviction of, inter alia, insurance fraud (under Docket No. XIV-2015-0391E) and his poor record-keeping practices and commingling of funds (under Docket No. IV-2019-0136E).

Docket No. XIV-2015-0391E

After the respondent's home was damaged in a flood in 2011, he contracted with Rivera Remodeling (hereinafter Rivera) to remediate the water damage. At the time, the respondent had a homeowner's insurance policy with Selective Insurance Company (hereinafter Selective). The respondent's employee, Larissa Sufaru, sent Rivera's purported invoice for the remediation to Selective. Sufaru wrote "paid in full" on the invoice to reflect the respondent's alleged payment of $14,000. Selective investigated the claim. Upon learning that Rivera had not prepared the invoice, Selective denied the respondent's claim.

On July 10, 2015, a superceding indictment issued by a grand jury in Middlesex County charged the respondent with the following crimes: (1) third-degree conspiracy to commit insurance fraud; (2) third-degree insurance fraud; (3) third-degree attempted theft by deception; (4) fourth-degree uttering; and (5) fourth-degree forgery. The charge for uttering was dismissed prior to trial.

A trial commenced on November 6, 2018, before the Honorable Dennis Nieves. During the trial, Sufaru testified that, at the respondent's direction, she created the $14,000 invoice and sent it to Selective. The respondent argued that the invoice represented actual, post-flood repair work to the home for which he was entitled to reimbursement.

On March 20, 2019, the respondent was found guilty of (1) third-degree conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, in violation of NJSA 2" target="_blank">Matter of Pomper, 70 AD3d 222).