New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department
April 5, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF TRACY A. BLOODSAW (ADMITTED AS TRACY ANN BLOODSAW), A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY: DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, TRACY A. BLOODSAW, RESPONDENT.
Matter of Bloodsaw
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 5, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISIONFirst Judicial Department
Angela M. Mazzarelli,Justice Presiding, John W. Sweeny, Jr. Leland G. DeGrasse Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels,Justices.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Tracy A. Bloodsaw, 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 January 14, 1998.
Respondent Tracy Ann Bloodsaw was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on January 14, 1998. At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.
By order entered July 7, 2011, respondent was suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and (iv), based upon her non-cooperation with a Committee investigation and her failure or refusal to pay money owed a client (Matter of Bloodsaw, 87 AD3d 190 ). Although served with both the motion and the subsequently entered order of suspension, respondent has not appeared in the proceeding.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) now petitions for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), disbarring respondent on the grounds that she has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and (iv), and has not appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the date of the order for suspension. The Committee further notes that it found no evidence that respondent notified her clients about her immediate suspension, notwithstanding her obligation to do so pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.13[c].
Inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court's suspension order, and respondent has failed to apply in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, respondent should be disbarred, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately (see Matter of Kennedy, 55 AD3d 169 ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g) should be granted, and respondent is disbarred, effective the date hereof. All concur. Order filed [April 5, 2012]. Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter, and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Respondent disbarred and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof. Opinion Per Curiam. All concur.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.