Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M62200

K/nl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

HOWARD MILLER

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

STEPHEN G. CRANE

REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.

2007-04845 In the Matter of Marise Robergeau, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, petitioner; Marise Robergeau, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2190338)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts for an order: 1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law pending consideration of charges of professional misconduct, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, in that she failed to submit written answers to complaints of professional misconduct filed against her; 2) authorizing the institution and prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding based upon a petition dated May 23, 2007; 3) directing the respondent to submit a written answer to the petition; and 4) appointing a Special Referee to hear and report. The Grievance Committee also sought authorization for substituted service. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 25, 1990.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and no papers having been 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, Marise Robergeau, 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 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, Marise Robergeau, 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 herself 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 Marise Robergeau, based on the petition dated May 23, 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 her of a copy of this decision and order, the respondent 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 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 or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Marise Robergeau, 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's investigation.

The Grievance Committee is currently investigating two complaints of professional misconduct against the respondent. The first complaint by Stanley Fleming alleges, inter alia, that the respondent neglected his son's criminal appeal. After paying the respondent the sum of $9,000 to prosecute the appeal, Mr. Fleming was unable to locate the respondent after March 2005. The respondent never filed the appeal. By letter dated April 4, 2005, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to answer the complaint within 10 days and advised that an unexcused failure to reply constitutes professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaint and would be treated accordingly. That letter was sent to 26 Court Street, the business address which the respondent had listed with Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA). Although the letter was not returned as undeliverable, the respondent failed to submit an answer or to contact the Grievance Committee.

The Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter at the 26 Court Street address dated May 17, 2005, via first class and certified mail, directing her to respond within 10 days and warning that her continued failure to cooperate could result in a motion for her interim suspension. While the certified letter was returned unclaimed, the letter sent via regular mail was not returned as undeliverable.

On March 30, 2006, the Grievance Committee received further correspondence from the complainant reiterating the neglect allegations, providing a status update on his son's case, and documenting his unsuccessful attempts to reach the respondent.

The Grievance Committee sent the respondent a third letter dated April 6, 2006, via first class and certified mail, to 111 Livingston Street, the address provided by the respondent to OCA in September 2005 when she formally changed her business address. The Grievance Committee warned the respondent that unless a written answer was received within 10 days, an application for her interim suspension would be made. The return receipt card bore a signature of "Ms. Mocala," dated April 7, 2006.

By letter dated February 20, 2007, sent via first class and certified mail to 3708 Oceanic Avenue, the home address listed on the respondent's most recently filed attorney registration form and the address on record with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Grievance Committee warned the respondent that unless a written answer was received by March 1, 2007, an application for her immediate suspension would be made. The certified letter was returned unclaimed. Although the first class letter was not returned as undeliverable, the respondent did not submit an answer or contact the Grievance Committee. Copies of the February 20, 2007, letter were also sent via first class and certified mail to the respondent's Livingston Street address. Both letters were returned marked "Attempted Not Known." To date, the respondent has failed to respond to the Fleming complaint.

On July 10, 2006, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Raymond I. Floy alleging that the respondent had neglected his divorce proceeding. After he retained the respondent in May 2004, Mr. Floy discovered, in February 2005, that she had vacated her law office and disconnected her telephone without providing contact information. By letter dated April 8, 2007, Mr. Floy noted that his divorce has not been resolved and he is financially unable to retain another attorney.

By letter dated August 15, 2006, which was sent to the business address the respondent had provided to OCA on September 23, 2005, the Grievance Committee had requested that the respondent submit an answer to the Floy complaint within 10 days. When the respondent failed to comply, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a second letter dated October 17, 2006, via first class and certified mail, directing her to respond within 10 days and warning that her continued failure to cooperate could result in a motion for her immediate suspension. The return- receipt card indicated delivery on October 19, 2006, under the signature "S. Mitchell." The respondent neither replied nor requested additional time in which to do so. The letter sent via first class mail was returned in its original envelope marked "Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to Forward."

The Grievance Committee sent the respondent a third letter dated March 12, 2007, via first class and certified mail, to the home address listed on the respondent's most recently filed attorney registration form and the address on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles. That letter directed the respondent to submit a reply within 10 days or risk a motion for her immediate suspension. Although the certified letter was returned "Unclaimed," the letter sent via first class mail was not returned as undeliverable. The respondent has, nevertheless, failed to respond to date.

The additional attempts by the Grievance Committee to locate the respondent include a visit by its investigator to the respondent's 26 Court Street premises on July 6, 2005. An employee in the building's management office revealed that the respondent had moved out of her office two weeks previously without leaving a forwarding address. Joseph Schacter of 26 Court Street Association, LLC, referred the Grievance Investigator to Edward Caesar, a friend and associate of the respondent who agreed, in July 2005, to leave her a message to contact the Grievance Committee.

On July 27, 2005, the Grievance Investigator went to the respondent's purported home address at 3708 Oceanic Avenue, Brooklyn. The resident at those premises confirmed that the respondent received mail there although she did not reside there. He agreed to give the respondent a message to contact the Grievance Committee.

On April 4, 2006, the Grievance Investigator called the number of the respondent's new office as listed with the Office of Court Administration. A receptionist confirmed that although it was the respondent's office, she was not available. On April 12, 2006, the Grievance Investigator visited the respondent's office but did not encounter her there. On both occasions, he left messages for the respondent to call him.

When the Grievance Investigator again telephoned the respondent's office on April 17, 2006, a receptionist indicated that it was the law office of John Kim. She stated that the respondent did not work there but provided a contact number. When the Grievance Investigator called that number, he obtained a woman's voice recording identifying herself as "Daisy Lopez."

On April 17, 2006, the Grievance Investigator went back to the Livingston Street office and left a message with the receptionist for the respondent to call him.

From April 2006 to February 8, 2007, the Grievance Investigator placed calls for the respondent at all available telephone numbers. He was informed that the respondent was no longer practicing law and that available contact numbers for her had been disconnected. On February 9, 2007, the Grievance Investigator contacted Linda Lidz, Senior Attorney at the Department of Corrections (hereinafter DOC), in the belief that the respondent had a DOC pass allowing her to regularly visit clients at the Riker's Island jail. Per Ms. Lidz, the respondent was not listed as an attorney in their system.

In February 2007, the Grievance Investigator went to the respondent's former Brooklyn address and questioned the four current tenants. He was informed that the respondent and her mother had moved out two or three years ago without leaving a forwarding address.

On March 15, 2007, the Grievance Investigator contacted the respondent's former landlord at premises in Jamaica, Queens. He was informed that the respondent was evicted in 1999, left no forwarding address, and owes the landlord $5,000. On that day, the Grievance Investigator also contacted two former attorney colleagues of the respondent. Neither one had contact information.

On March 19, 2007, Grievance Counsel learned from the Administrator of the Assigned Counsel Plan that the respondent had not received an assignment since 1998. On March 26, 2007, Grievance Counsel contacted the private investigator employed by complainant Fleming to find the respondent. Although unsuccessful in finding her, the investigator referred Grievance Counsel to the owner of the Brooklyn building where the respondent had once lived. Although he denied being a relative of hers, the property owner revealed that he had brought a holdover proceeding against the respondent's mother for nonpayment of rent. He successfully evicted the Robergeaus after four years of litigation. The landlord had no contact information although allegedly he had seen the respondent walking on Bergen Street early one morning.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the complaint or to contact the Grievance Committee in any fashion. Although served on June 4, 2007, via court authorized substituted service, along with the order to show cause and accompanying petition charging her with failure to cooperate, the respondent has failed to submit any reply or to contact the Grievance Committee or the court to request an extension of time in which to comply.

Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, without opposition, the respondent is immediately suspended, and the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against her.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court