Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M46702

K/nl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

ANITA R. FLORIO

HOWARD MILLER

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.

2006-04627 In the Matter of Jack Martin, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, petitioner; Jack Martin, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 1168905)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts for an order suspending the respondent from the practice of law, pending consideration of charges of professional misconduct against him, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he has failed to submit written answers and/or to supply information with respect to three separate complaints alleging professional misconduct and has failed to comply with petitioner's lawful demand that he appear for an investigative appearance. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 31, 1954.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and no papers having been submitted in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion of the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts is granted without opposition; 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, Jack Martin, 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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Jack Martin, based on the order to show cause dated May 12, 2006; and it is further,

ORDERED that Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Renaissance Plaza, 335 Adams Street, Suite 2400, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201-3745, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,

ORDERED that the petitioner Grievance Committee shall serve upon the respondent and the Special Referee, and shall file with this court, a petition within 30 days after receipt of a copy of this decision and order on motion; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the petition, 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 by the petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Herbert Altman, a retired Acting Supreme Court Justice, New York County, 333 E. 23rd Street-Apt 4D, New York, N.Y. 10010, as Special Referee to hear and report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing on the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Jack Martin, 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 his 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 his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation into complaints of professional misconduct against him.

The Grievance Committee is currently conducting three separate investigations into the respondent's alleged professional misconduct. The first matter emanates from a complaint filed by Terence Floyd alleging that respondent neglected two legal matters. The second investigation is based upon a complaint filed by Valerie Rosa alleging respondent's neglect of a single legal matter. The third matter is a sua sponte investigation into respondent's alleged failure to timely re-register as an attorney with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA).

By letter dated September 24, 2004, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent of the Floyd complaint and requested his response within 10 days. The letter was mailed to the respondent at the Brooklyn address at which he last registered with OCA. The respondent neither submitted a written answer to the Floyd complaint nor requested additional time in which to do so.

By letter dated November 8, 2004, sent via certified and first class mail, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that a written answer to the complaint had not been received and directed him to submit a written answer within 10 days. The Grievance Committee advised the respondent that his continued failure to cooperate could result in an application for his immediate suspension.

By letter dated December 14, 2004, the respondent detailed his various medical conditions and requested an additional 30 days to file his written answer to the Floyd complaint. He submitted that answer on January 12, 2005.

On May 12 and May 31, 2005, Grievance Counsel left messages on the respondent's answering machine regarding the Floyd matter. The calls were not returned. Grievance Counsel contacted the respondent on July 5, 2005. Although the respondent agreed to forward additional information, including his plan to obtain Mr. Floyd's money from the insurance company when the check had long since gone stale and his explanation for why the courts had dismissed the second Floyd matter, he failed to do so.

On August 9, 2005, Grievance Counsel attempted to leave a message on the respondent's answering machine but was cut off before completing the message. The respondent neither returned the call nor forwarded any of the additional information requested.

By letter dated August 24, 2005, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that he was the subject of a second investigation based upon allegations set forth in the complaint of Valerie Rosa and directed him to submit an answer within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted the answer nor requested additional time in which to do so. By a second letter dated August 24, 2005, the respondent advised complainant that he was the subject of a sua sponte investigation based upon his failure to re-register as an attorney with OCA and directed him to answer within 30 days. The respondent neither re-registered nor submitted a written explanation for his failure to do so.

By letter dated September 30, 2005, Grievance Counsel directed the respondent to contact her within 10 days to schedule his appearance to give sworn testimony on all three pending matters. The respondent was asked to bring all documentation which would assist the Committee in its inquiry into these matters, including his original file. The respondent failed to contact Grievance Counsel as directed.

On November 9, 2005, the Grievance Committee's investigator attempted to personally serve the respondent with a letter directing him to appear at the Grievance Committee's offices to give sworn testimony on all three pending matters on November 21, 2005. Inasmuch as personal service could not be effected, the investigator left the letter on the respondent's front door. The respondent neither appeared on November 21 nor requested an adjournment.

On December 1, 2005, the investigator went to the respondent's home and directed him to call Grievance Counsel. The respondent conceded that he had received the Grievance Committee's letter and was aware of the pending investigations. To date, he has failed to contact the Grievance Committee or to comply with any of its requests.

Although personally served with the Grievance Committee's Order to Show Cause on May 24, 2006, the respondent has not submitted a reply or requested an adjournment.

Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, the respondent is suspended for failure to cooperate and, on the court's own motion, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court