Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Ross

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

May 10, 2017

In the Matter of Mitchell S. Ross, an attorney and counselor-at-law Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Mitchell S. Ross, respondent. Attorney Registration No. 1976166

         DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING JOINT MOTION pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(5) by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, and the respondent, Mitchell S. Ross, for discipline by consent. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department on March 26, 1985. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 17, 2014, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to former 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute the disciplinary proceeding against him, the respondent was directed to serve and file an answer to the verified petition within 20 days of service of the decision and order on motion upon him, and the issues raised by the verified petition, and any answer thereto, were referred to the Honorable Georgia Tschiember, as Special Referee, to hear and report. By opinion and order of this Court dated April 22, 2015, the respondent was disbarred upon his default in answering a verified petition dated March 12, 2014, and his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 27, 2016, upon good cause shown, the respondent's motion to vacate the opinion and order of this Court dated April 22, 2015, and so much of the decision and order on motion dated July 17, 2014, as immediately suspended him were granted, and the respondent was immediately reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law.

          Michael S. Ross, New York, NY, for respondent.

          Mitchell T. Borkowsky, Hauppauge, NY (Ian P. Barry of counsel), for petitioner.

          RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA MARK C. DILLON L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

          OPINION & ORDER

          PER CURIAM.

         The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the petitioner) served the respondent with a petition dated March 12, 2014, containing two charges of professional misconduct. The petitioner and the respondent now move pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(5) for discipline by consent, and request the imposition of a public censure. As required by 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(5)(i)(A), the parties have submitted a stipulation of facts which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

"4. On or about June 27, 2013, the petitioner received a complaint alleging that the respondent engaged in professional misconduct with respect to a real estate transaction.
"5. By letter dated July 9, 2013, mailed to the respondent's office address then on file with the Office of Court Administration, the petitioner informed the respondent that an investigation had been commenced into respondent's alleged professional misconduct, and requested that the respondent provide a written response to the allegations contained within the complaint within ten (10) days of his receipt of said letter.
"6. The respondent failed to respond to the petitioner's July 9, 2013 letter.
"7. By letter dated August 5, 2013, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's office address then on file with the Office of Court Administration, the petitioner provided a copy of petitioner's previous letter to the respondent, and again requested that the respondent provide a written response to the allegations contained within the complaint, within ten (10) days of his receipt of said letter.
"8. The respondent failed to respond to petitioner's August 5, 2013 letter.
"9. By letter dated September 30, 2013, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's office address then on file with the Office of Court Administration, the petitioner provided copies of petitioner's previous letters to the respondent, and again requested that the respondent provide a written response to the allegations contained within the complaint, within ten (10) days of his receipt of said letter.
"10. The respondent failed to respond to petitioner's September 30, 2013 letter.
"11. By letter dated November 22, 2013, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's office address then on file with the Office of Court Administration, the petitioner provided copies of the petitioner's previous letters to the respondent, and demanded a response from the respondent, pursuant to Appellate Division, Second Department Rule 691.4(l)(1)(i) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.