SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
September 8, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN T. RONDOS, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW.
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE SECOND, ELEVENTH, AND THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, PETITIONER;
STEVEN T. RONDOS, RESPONDENT. (ATTORNEY REGISTRATION NO. 2446250)
Application by the petitioner, Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3, to impose discipline on the respondent based upon disciplinary action taken by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The respondent was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on December 11, 1991.
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.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, PETER B. SKELOS STEVEN W. FISHER and RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.
OPINION & ORDER
By order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated January 5, 2009, the respondent was disbarred on consent, his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys in that state, and he was permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law in that state.
The respondent specifically admitted that his consent was voluntarily given, that he was not subject to coercion or duress, and that the implications of its submission were fully known to him. He is aware that he was the subject of an investigation into his alleged misappropriation of client trust account funds. The respondent avers that those allegations are true and that he would be unable to successfully defend himself against them at a hearing. He consented to disbarrment in the State of New Jersey, knowing that it constituted an absolute barrier to his ever seeking reinstatement to the New Jersey State Bar. The respondent acknowledged that his disbarrment by consent in the State of New Jersey could not be entered into evidence of wrongdoing in any legal proceedings other than in a disciplinary or Lawyers' Fund proceeding.
By letter dated March 30, 2009, the respondent's counsel informed this Court that the respondent will not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline. He has been in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction since his arraignment on February 3, 2009. While the respondent's incarceration renders it difficult to communicate with counsel, he plans to submit an affidavit voluntarily resigning as an attorney in New York.
In view of the respondent's failure to submit a statement of defenses or a demand for a hearing, there is no impediment to the imposition of reciprocal discipline at this juncture. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred on the basis of his New Jersey disbarrment and his proposed submission of a resignation in New York at some future date is unnecessary.
RIVERA, J.P., SPOLZINO, SKELOS, FISHER and ENG, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the petitioner's application is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3, effective immediately, the respondent, Steven T. Rondos, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Steven T. Rondos, shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Steven T. Rondos, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
ORDERED that if the respondent, Steven T. Rondos, 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).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.