In the Matter of Mark S. Pomerantz, (admitted as Mark Steven Pomerantz), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Mark S. Pomerantz, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2035475) Respondent.
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.
Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New
York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
Tom, Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Richard T.
Andrias, Judith J. Gische, Barbara R. Kapnick, Justices.
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. At
all times relevant herein, he maintained an office for the
practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
order entered September 21, 2010, respondent was suspended
from the practice of law for three months based on his plea
of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a forged
instrument (2010 NY Slip Op 82856[U] [1st Dept 2010]). By
order entered March 24, 2011, he was reinstated (2011 NY Slip
Op 67836 [U] [1st Dept 2011]).
last registered with the Office of Court Administration (OCA)
on or about June 4, 2014, listing a law firm as his business
address. By letter dated July 24, 2017, the firm advised the
Committee that respondent had stopped working there in
February 2015. Respondent has failed to register or pay dues
for the 2016/17 biennial period.
Attorney Grievance Committee received a complaint from
respondent's former wife alleging that he failed to
comply with numerous financial obligations contained in an
order issued on October 21, 2016, after hearing, by a Court
Attorney Referee in Supreme Court, Nassau County, in their
divorce proceedings. Prior to the hearing, by order dated May
21, 2015, respondent had been found in willful contempt based
on his failure to pay $5, 000 in interim counsel fees and
committed to a correctional center for 60 days with a purge
amount of $5, 000, which he subsequently paid. By order dated
May 20, 2016, respondent was found in willful contempt for a
second time based on his alleged failure to pay child support
and maintenance arrears, as required by a so-ordered
stipulation dated December 4, 2015, and in failing to pay
college tuition for their minor child.
being served with the complaint, multiple demands that he
answer the complaint, and a judicial subpoena duces tecum
demanding his appearance, respondent has not appeared or
contacted the Committee. Respondent has been notified
repeatedly of his default and asked to contact the Committee,
but has failed to do so, even though he has been advised that
his failure to cooperate could expose him to an interim
Committee now moves for an order, pursuant to the Rules for
Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(3)
and (5), and Judiciary Law § 468-a(2), immediately
suspending respondent from the practice of law until further
order of this Court based upon his failure to comply with a
lawful demand of the Court or the Committee, uncontroverted
evidence of professional misconduct, and his failure to
register with and inform OCA of changes to his attorney
information. By order entered October 12, 2017, this Court
granted the Committee permission to serve the motion, and any
additional filings in this case, upon respondent by first
class mail with tracking and certified mail, return receipt
requested. Respondent has not opposed the motion.
Committee has presented clear and uncontested evidence that
respondent has engaged in conduct that immediately threatens
the public interest, warranting his immediate suspension. The
record establishes, among other things, that respondent has
failed to comply with the numerous requests of the Committee
contained in letters, emails and voice mails requesting that
he answer the complaint and that he has failed to comply with
a court ordered subpoena directing his appearance for
deposition (see Matter of Spencer, 148 A.D.3d 223');">148 A.D.3d 223
[1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Yoo Rok Jung, 132 A.D.3d
236 [1st Dept 2015]). The record further establishes that
respondent was found in willful contempt for failing to
comply with court orders in connection with his financial
obligations in the matrimonial matter with his former wife,
which evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial system
(see Matter of Rennie, 260 A.D.2d 132');">260 A.D.2d 132 [1st Dept
1999]). Lastly, respondent is delinquent in his attorney
registration and has failed to notify OCA of changes to his
addresses and telephone numbers within 30 days of such
change, as required by Judiciary Law § 468-a(2), thereby
frustrating the Committee's attempt to communicate with
him regarding its investigation (see Matter of
Banji, 106 A.D.3d 73');">106 A.D.3d 73 [1st Dept 2013]).
the Committee's motion should be granted and respondent
suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately,
and until further order of the Court.