Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M54132

E/nl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

HOWARD MILLER

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

STEPHEN G. CRANE

STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.

2007-01904 In the Matter of Andre Strishak, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, petitioner; Andre Strishak, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2576585 )

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts for an order: (1) suspending the respondent 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 to complaints of professional misconduct filed against him and that he has failed to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in connection with its investigation; (2) authorizing the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon the petition dated February 28, 2007; (3) directing the respondent to submit a written answer to the petition; and (4) referring the issues raised to a Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on November 22, 1993.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation 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, Andre Strishak, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Andre Strishak, 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, Andre Strishak, 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 or 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 the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against the respondent, Andre Strishak, based on the petition dated February 28, 2007; 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 within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on moion, the respondent, Andre Strishak, shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer with this court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Jerome M. Becker, a former Judge of the Criminal and Family Courts, c/o Douglas Becker, Esq., Joseph P. Day Co., 9 East 40th Street, 8th floor, New York, N.Y. 10016, as Special Referee to hear and 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, Andre Strishak, 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.

The Grievance Committee's investigation involved nine separate complaints of professional misconduct.

On November 7, 2005, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Lucille McFadden-Carter alleging that the respondent neglected her personal injury case, failed to communicate with her for over four years, and sent her a letter informing her that his office was closing and that she should find a new attorney. By letter dated December 8, 2005, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer to the McFadden-Carter complaint within 10 days. The respondent presumably received that letter inasmuch as it was not returned undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The respondent nevertheless failed to answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any way.

By letter dated January 9, 2006, sent via certified and regular mail, the Grievance Committee again directed the respondent to provide a written answer to the McFadden-Carter complaint within 10 days and warned that his continued failure to cooperate could result in an application for his immediate suspension. The certified mail receipt card was returned to the Grievance Committee unsigned, and the letter sent via first class mail was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. By letter dated January 13, 2006, the respondent informed the Grievance Committee that he made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms. McFadden-Carter. He further noted that Ms. McFadden-Carter elected to change attorneys and that her file had been forwarded to new counsel. By letter dated February 1, 2006, the Grievance Committee forwarded a copy of Ms. McFadden-Carter's reply to the respondent and requested that he send any comments or additional information within 10 days. No further correspondence was received from the respondent.

On December 23, 2005, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Lia Lebedeva alleging that the respondent failed to communicate with her for over four years except to schedule an examination before trial and then sent a letter notifying her of a trial date of September 27, 2005. After the trial date passed, when Ms. Lebedeva's inquiries went unanswered, she visited to the respondent's office and found it permanently closed. By letter dated January 6, 2006, sent via first class mail, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to provide a written answer within 10 days. Although that letter was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, the respondent failed to answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any manner.

By letter dated February 1, 2006, sent via certified and first class mail, the Grievance Committee again directed the respondent to provide a written answer within 10 days and warned that his continued failure to cooperate could result in a motion for his interim suspension. The certified mail receipt card was returned unsigned, and the letter sent via first class mail was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The Grievance Committee thereafter granted a request from the respondent's office for an extension of time to answer the Lebedeva complaint until March 2, 2006. The respondent failed to answer or to request a further extension. By letter dated March 16, 2006, sent via certified and first class mail, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to provide a written answer by March 31, 2006, and warned that his failure to cooperate could result in an application for his immediate suspension. Although the letter sent via certified mail, return receipt requested was returned unclaimed, the letter sent via first class mail was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. No further correspondence was received from respondent.

On February 24, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Glen R. Wynter alleging that after receiving a letter from the respondent advising him of an examination before trial in his personal injury case scheduled for December 14, 2005, he appeared at the respondent's office only to be advised that it would be closing and that his file would only be transferred to a new attorney instead of him directly. By letter dated March 9, 2006, sent via first class mail, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to provide a written answer within 10 days. Although that letter was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, the respondent failed to submit an answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any manner. By letter dated May 11, 2006, sent via first class and certified mail, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to provide a written answer within 10 days. The Grievance Committee warned the respondent that his continued failure to cooperate could result in an application for his immediate suspension. Although the signed, certified mail receipt was returned to the Grievance Committee and the first class letter was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, the respondent failed to answer or to otherwise respond to either of the Grievance Committee 's letters.

On May 18, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Tamara Jones alleging that the respondent disappeared after representing Ms. Jones, her two children, and her brother in a personal injury arbitration, which awarded them the sum of $18,000. Ms. Jones's brother, who turned 18 on December 17, 2005, never received a check in settlement of his claim, and Ms. Jones apparently asked the insurance company that issued the check to place a stop payment order on the check. The Grievance Committee attempted to hand deliver a letter to the respondent's office on June 6, 2006, only to find the office permanently closed. The Grievance Committee later delivered the letter to the respondent's home address by depositing it in his mailbox.

By letter dated June 6, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to provide, within 10 days, a written answer to the McFadden-Carter reply letters, information about the status of his law practice, and written answers to the Lebedeva, Wynter, and Jones complaints. The Grievance Committee also directed the respondent to appear at its offices on June 22, 2006, to give sworn testimony and advised him that his continued failure to cooperate would result in a motion for his immediate suspension. The Grievance Committee later granted the respondent's request to extend the time to submit the requested information to June 23, 2006, and adjourned the investigative appearance to June 27, 2006.

On June 14, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Crystal L. Jackson alleging that although the respondent represented her in a personal injury action which was settled for the sum of $15,000 and the insurance company mailed out the check on April 28, 2006, she did not receive the proceeds. By letter dated June 20, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to provide a written answer to the Ms. Jackson's complaint by June 26, 2006.

In a telephone conversation on June 23, 2006, the respondent explained that he was experiencing computer problems. His time to respond to the Jackson complaint, as well as the prior complaints, was extended to June 30, 2006, and his investigative appearance was adjourned to July 11, 2006. On June 29, 2006, the respondent telephoned Grievance Counsel, indicated that he was still experiencing computer problems, and represented that he would call Grievance Counsel on July 6, 2006, to reschedule the due dates and investigative appearance. Grievance Counsel left a message on the respondent's cell phone on July 13, 2006, after he failed to call back. Grievance Counsel left another message on the respondent's cell phone on August 7, 2006, directing him to contact the Grievance Committee immediately. To date, the respondent has failed to contact the Grievance Committee to reschedule his investigative appearance, to submit a written response, or to further cooperate with the investigations.

On October 2, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Alex Khait alleging that the respondent represented both Mr. Khait and his passenger in a motor vehicle accident case and failed to inform Mr. Khait of the conflict of interests. Mr. Khait further alleged that after a jury found that he was 99% at fault in the happening of the accident, a judgment was entered against him by the respondent. By letter dated October 13, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer within 10 days. The respondent presumably received the letter inasmuch as it was not returned undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The respondent nevertheless failed to submit an answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any manner regarding this complaint.

On November 2, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Freddy Hidalgo alleging that the respondent settled his motor vehicle accident case with the City of New York for the sum of $3,500 and then moved without finalizing the settlement. By letter dated November 16, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer within 10 days. Although the respondent presumably received the letter inasmuch as it was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, the respondent failed to submit an answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any manner regarding this complaint.

On November 17, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Steven (Vyacheslav) Fruman alleging that Mr. Fruman, who was not a lawyer, entered into a management services agreement to run the respondent's law firm in exchange for a "15% facility fee." He sued the respondent for breach of that agreement, which was found by the court to be illegal. By letter dated December 20, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer within 10 days. Although the respondent presumably received that letter inasmuch as it was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, he failed to submit an answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any manner regarding this complaint.

On November 30, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Ineetous T. Holder alleging that he recently found out that the personal injury case on which the respondent represented him was dismissed in October 2004. Mr. Holder asserted that he was not informed of the dismissal until he called the respondent's office about his case, and subsequently he was told that the respondent's whereabouts were unknown. By letter dated December 20, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer within 10 days. Although the respondent presumably received the letter inasmuch as it was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service, he failed to submit an answer or to contact the Grievance Committee in any manner regarding this complaint.

To date, the respondent has failed to contact the Grievance Committee, to submit a written response to its inquiries, or to otherwise cooperate with respect to the Khait, Hidalgo, Fruman, and Holder complaints.

The Grievance Committee telephoned the respondent's father, Anatole Strishak, on February 13, 2007, and February 21, 2007, and confirmed that the respondent continues to receive mail at the address the Grievance Committee's letters were sent to and that his cell phone number remains the same.

A prior order to show cause for this same relief, signed on March 1, 2007, required personal delivery on or before March 7, 2007. Notwithstanding numerous documented attempts by the Grievance Committee's investigator to effect service at the respondent's personal residence, the respondent directed the doorman not to allow the process server access to his apartment. Following the respondent's refusal to accept service on March 5, 2007, the Grievance Committee's investigator left a voice message on the respondent's cell phone mailbox for the respondent to call to arrange for service. The respondent has not communicated with the Grievance Committee. Based on the respondent's extensive history of failing to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation and his recent refusal to accept personal service, the Grievance Committee requested leave to serve the respondent pursuant to CPLR 308(2), on the ground that personal service could not with due diligence be accomplished, and sought service via delivery of the papers to a person of suitable age and discretion at the respondent 's residence and mailing same to that residence. On March 9, 2007, service was made upon the doorman at the respondent's residence and upon the respondent via United States Postal Service's Priority Mail. The respondent has not opposed the motion or sought an extension of time in which to do so.

Based on the uncontested allegations set forth by the Grievance Committee, the motion is granted, the respondent is suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based on the petition dated February 28, 2007, the respondent is directed to submit an answer to the petition within 20 days after service upon him of the order determining this motion, the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report, and this and all future orders in this proceeding be served upon the respondent by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at the respondent's actual place of residence and by mailing same to the respondent at that same address by first class mail, as authorized by the Presiding Justice in the order to show cause dated March 7, 2007.

PRUDENTI, P.J., MILLER, SCHMIDT, CRANE and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court