On March 13, 2002, the Grievance Committee filed a statement reporting respondent’s conviction and setting forth the position that, if committed in New York, respondent’s conduct would constitute criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), a class B felony. Respondent filed an affidavit in response, stating that he waives his right to appear before this Court, he understands that he has been convicted of an offense that would constitute a felony in New York and he consents to the entry of an order of disbarment.

Inasmuch as respondent has been convicted of an offense that, if committed in New York, would be classified as a felony, he is disbarred by operation of law (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a], [e]; Matter of Delany, 87 NY2d 508, 512; Matter of Johnston, 75 NY2d 403, 405). PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed May 3, 2002.)

MATTER OF WILLIE R. FELTON, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. -- Order entered dismissing application for reinstatement. Memorandum: Petitioner raises no facts in support of the application that have not previously been considered by this Court on petitioner’s prior applications for reinstatement and reconsideration. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed May 3, 2002.)

MATTER OF DAVID B. GROSSMAN, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on June 11, 1986, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Central Square. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct, including neglect, failure to carry out contracts of employment and misappropriation of client funds. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. The Referee has filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm in part.

The Grievance Committee subsequently filed a supplemental petition charging respondent with additional acts of professional misconduct. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the supplemental petition and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee, with the following exceptions. First, we disaffirm the finding that respondent erroneously stored in a file the sum of $5,000 in cash that should have been deposited in an escrow account. On the record before us, we find instead that the facts establish that respondent misappropriated the funds and claimed to have found the cash, misfiled, only after he had been notified of the clients’ complaint.

Second, we disaffirm the findings of fact made by the Referee that respondent was unable to represent his clients properly, and, specifically, that he was unable to finalize a client’s divorce, because he was locked out of his office. We find that respondent could have obtained access to his office by arranging a time with the landlord’s attorney and that his failure to finalize the divorce resulted from his failure to pursue the matter. The facts establish that respondent neglected the legal matters of eight clients and effectively abandoned the clients without explanation.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

DR 2-110 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.15 [a] [2]) - withdrawing from employment without taking steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of clients;

DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

DR 7-101 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [1]) - intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of clients;

DR 7-101 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [2]) - failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services;

DR 7-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [3]) - intentionally engaging in conduct causing prejudice to clients;

DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds;

DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain funds of a client in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts;

DR 9-102 (b) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [4]) - failing to maintain client funds in an appropriate account;

DR 9-102 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3]) - failing to maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into his possession and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding them; and

DR 9-102 (c) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) - failing to deliver promptly to clients property in his possession that the clients were entitled to receive.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation. Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of three years and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER, AND BURNS, JJ. (Filed May 3, 2002.)

MATTER OF ROY C. HOPKINS, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Apr. 18, 2002.)

MATTER OF D. MICHAEL MURRAY, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.23 (b). PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Apr. 18, 2002.)

MATTER OF RONALD W. PLEWNIAK, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. -- Order entered denying application for reinstatement. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed May 3, 2002.)

MATTER OF THOMAS J. PRZYBYLA, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 15, 1987, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Depew. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct including conversion. Respondent filed an answer admitting certain material allegations of the petition and outstanding issues of fact were resolved by stipulation. Respondent appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

Respondent admits that he failed to remit timely to his client the client’s share of the proceeds from a real estate sale and that he issued to the client a trust account check that was dishonored for insufficient funds. Additionally, when respondent subsequently issued a certified check to reimburse the client, the underlying funds included those of a unrelated client.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds;

DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain client funds in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts; and

DR 9-102 (c) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) - failing to deliver promptly to a client funds in his possession that the client was entitled to receive.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including his contention that the misconduct was not intentional and resulted from inattentiveness due to his grief over the death of his father. Respondent, however, previously received a Letter of Caution for trust account improprieties. Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for one year and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER, AND BURNS, JJ. (Filed May 3, 2002.)

MATTER OF WILLIAM J. SEDOR, JR., A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on July 13, 1994, and maintained an office for the practice of law in Rochester. By order entered November 13, 2000, respondent was suspended for a period of six months and until further order of the Court for acts of professional misconduct, including falsely notarizing documents, arranging loans between clients and representing opposing parties without making required disclosures regarding the potential conflict of interest.

Respondent filed an affidavit of compliance on December 14, 2000, in which he stated that he had notified his clients and opposing counsel in pending matters of his suspension. Thereafter, the Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct, including engaging in the practice of law while he was suspended and filing a false affidavit of compliance with this Court. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties executed a stipulation setting forth additional allegations of misconduct, resolving certain outstanding issues of fact and setting forth matters in mitigation. After a hearing in which limited testimony was taken from respondent, the Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

The admissions of respondent establish that he engaged in the practice of law in violation of this Court’s order of suspension by seeking adjournments on behalf of clients in pending matters; that he failed to provide adequate written notice of his suspension to clients and opposing counsel in pending matters and failed to withdraw as counsel in pending matters, in violation of the Rules of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department; and that he filed with this Court a false affidavit of compliance with the suspension order.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) - engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

Additionally, we conclude that respondent violated Rules of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (22 NYCRR § 1022.27 [a], [b] and [c]) governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended or resigned attorneys.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for two years, effective May 13, 2001, and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed May 3, 2002.)