Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M39084

K/nal

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

ANITA R. FLORIO

HOWARD MILLER

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, JJ.

2005-10639 In the Matter of Leslie Sue Safian, a/k/a Leslie S. Kuhn, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Leslie Sue Safian, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2368116)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District for an order: 1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that she failed to answer a complaint of professional misconduct and failed to appear pursuant to judicial subpoena and that there exists uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; 2) authorizing the institution of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent; 3) appointing a Special Referee to conduct a hearing into the allegations of professional misconduct; and 4) directing the respondent to answer the petition annexed to its Order to Show Cause within 10 days. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on September 24, 1990, under the name Leslie Sue Safian.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and there being no papers submitted in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), the respondent, Leslie Sue Safian, a/k/a Leslie S. Kuhn, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of this court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent 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, during the period of suspension and until further order of this court, the respondent, Leslie Sue Safian, a/k/a Leslie S. Kuhn, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or 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 of its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Leslie Sue Safian, a/k/a Leslie S. Kuhn, based upon the petition dated November 3, 2005; and it is further,

ORDERED that Gary L. Casella, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, 399 Knollwood Road, Suite 200, White Plains, N.Y. 10603, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer in the office of the Clerk of this court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised, along with the charges previously referred to him, are referred to the Honorable William D. Friedmann, a retired Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, 4 Martine Avenue, White Plains, N.Y. 10606, as Special Referee to hear and report; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Special Referee is directed to complete and submit his report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Leslie Sue Safian, a/k/a Leslie S. Kuhn, 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 her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).

We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon her failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee and other uncontroverted evidence.

The respondent is the subject of a sua sponte complaint based on records of the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA) which revealed that she failed to re-register as an attorney and failed to file a required change of address. The respondent's $300 biennial attorney registration fee for the 2001-2002 period was due in August 2001. The respondent failed to pay for that period and for subsequent periods as well.

By letter dated February 25, 2005, the Grievance Committee sent the sua sponte complaint to the respondent requesting that she submit an answer within 10 days and advising her that an unexcused failure to reply constitutes professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaint. The respondent failed to submit an answer. The Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter dated April 19, 2005, via certified mail, directing her to answer the complaint within 20 days and advising her that appropriate action would be taken should she fail to respond. The February 25, 2005, letter was not returned by the post office. The April 19, 2005, certified letter was returned to the Grievance Committee indicating that delivery was "attempted. Not known."

The Grievance Committee obtained a new address for the respondent and sent her a third letter, dated June 9, 2005, via regular mail, directing her to answer the complaint within 10 days and reminding her that her unexcused failure to submit an answer to the sua sponte complaint constitutes professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaint. That letter was not returned by the post office and no response was received from the respondent. When the Grievance Committee telephoned the respondent, she advised that she was in the process of moving and gave assurances that she would comply.

By letter dated July 26, 2005, the Grievance Committee reminded the respondent that her registration remained delinquent and that her continued noncompliance would result in a disciplinary action. The Grievance Committee advised the respondent that it was imperative that she submit an answer by August 8, 2005, and proof of her updated registration by August 29, 2005. When the respondent still failed to comply, Grievance Counsel made a follow-up telephone call and sent a letter, dated August 31, 2005, reminding her of her continued noncompliance. That letter was not returned by the post office and no response was received from the respondent.

On or about October 17, 2005, the respondent was personally served with a judicial subpoena, so ordered by the Court, commanding that she appear at the Grievance Committee's offices on October 20, 2005, to answer the sua sponte complaint. The respondent failed to either appear on that date or request an adjournment. To date, the respondent has not contacted the Grievance Committee regarding her failure to appear. Nor has she answered the sua sponte complaint or re-registered with OCA.

In view of the respondent's flagrant disregard of the Grievance Committee's lawful demands and her failure to comply with a judicial subpoena, we find that she constitutes an immediate threat to the public interest. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, without opposition.

PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, MILLER, SCHMIDT and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court