Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M68273

E/nl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

REINALDO E. RIVERA

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO

PETER B. SKELOS

STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.

2007-11308 In the Matter of Donnahue G. George, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, petitioner; Donnahue G. George, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4221586)

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 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 to the Grievance Committee written answers to three separate complaints alleging professional misconduct and has failed to comply with a lawful demand in connection with an investigation by the Grievance Committee; 2) authorizing the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon a petition dated January 16, 2008, which is annexed to the order to show cause; 3) directing the respondent to submit an answer; and 4) referring the issues raised to a Special Referee to hear and report. By order to show cause of this court dated January 17, 2008, the Grievance Committee was authorized to serve respondent by leaving a copy of the motion papers at the last known residence at which he is registered with the Office of Court Administration, the address where his wife currently resides, and the address on his driver 's license and vehicle registration, by affixing same to the outer door of the residence and depositing a copy in the mail. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 19, 2004.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and no papers having been submitted in opposition or in 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, Donnahue G. George, 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, Donnahue G. George, 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, Donnahue G. George, 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 Donnahue G. George, based on the petition dated January 16, 2008; and it is further,

ORDERED that Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel, 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 motion, 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, together with his finding on the issues, and to submit a 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, Donnahue G. George, 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 comply with lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.

The Grievance Committee is currently conducting five separate investigations into allegations of the respondent's professional misconduct. The first matter emanates from a complaint filed by Paulina Mathurin alleging that the respondent represented her at a closing with Lost and Found Recovery, Inc., which was intended to save her home from foreclosure. The complainant recevied less than half of the proceeds of the sale and her mortgage was never paid as agreed. The respondent thereafter failed to return the complainant's calls or answer her requests for information about the money. The second matter emanates from a complaint by Rolf Rathjens alleging a similar set of circumstances. The third matter emanates from a complaint by Patricia A. Reid alleging that the respondent failed to pay her mortgage payments as previously agreed upon. The fourth matter is a sua sponte investigation alleging the respondent's failure to appear in court or to respond to a judge's telephone calls in a criminal matter. The fifth matter emanates from a complaint filed by Colette J. Scott alleging neglect of her legal matter.

By letter dated November 23, 2005, sent to the Court Street address at which the respondent last registered with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA), the Grievance Committee requested an answer to the Mathurin complaint within 10 days. The respondent failed to answer or to request additional time in which to do so.

By letter dated January 17, 2006, sent via certified and first class mail, the Grievance Committee again directed the respondent to submit a written answer within 10 days and advised that his continued failure to cooperate could result in his immediate suspension.

By letter dated March 15, 2006, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Rathjens complaint within 10 days. That letter was sent to the Herkimer Street address at which the respondent was then registered with OCA.

By letter dated March 17, 2006, sent via certified and regular mail to the Herkimer Street address, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that unless it received an answer to the Mathurin complaint by March 31, 2006, an application for his immediate suspension could ensue.

In an undated letter received by the Grievance Committee on March 24, 2006, the respondent advised that he had not received the letters sent to the Court Street address where he only had a mailbox and use of the conference room for interview purposes at an hourly rate. The respondent stated that he was then receiving his mail at the Herkimer Street address.

The Grievance Committee received answers to the Mathurin and Rathjens complaints on March 24, 2006, and March 31, 2006, respectively. By letter dated May 5, 2006, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to appear at its offices to testify with respect to the Mathurin and Rathjens matters. The respondent appeared and testified on July 12, 2006.

By letter dated July 18, 2006, the Grievance Committee requested an answer to the Reid complaint within 10 days. Although that letter was sent to the Herkimer Street address, the respondent neither answered nor requested additional time in which to do so. By letter dated September 26, 2006, sent to the Herkimer Street address via certified and regular mail, the Grievance Committee again directed the respondent to submit an answer within 10 days and advised that an application for his interim suspension might ensue should he fail to comply. The certified letter was returned to the Grievance Committee as unclaimed. The letter sent via regular first class mail was not returned. A similar letter dated October 5, 2006, which was sent to the Herkimer Street address, was returned to the Grievance Committee as "unclaimed unable to forward."

By letter dated October 13, 2006, the Grievance Committee apprised the respondent that he was the subject of a sua sponte investigation based upon his conduct in a matter pending before the Hon. Joel Goldberg in the Supreme Court, Kings County, and directed him to submit an answer within 10 days. The respondent failed to comply. The Grievance Committee's investigator filed a request with the U.S. Postal Service for verification of the respondent's home and office addresses. After unsuccessfully attempting to telephone the respondent, the Grievance Committee discovered that the respondent's home address was 815 Utica Avenue, Brooklyn.

The U.S. Postal Service confirmed that a family named George was residing at 815 Utica Avenue, Brooklyn, but the letter carrier was "not sure of the name of Donnahue G. George." Similarly, the U.S. Postal Service confirmed that a law office was present at the Herkimer Street address but it was not certain whether the respondent was working or receiving mail there.

On November 3, 2006, the Grievance Committee's investigator unsuccessfully attempted to hand-deliver a letter from the Grievance Committee to the respondent at both the Utica Avenue and Herkimer Street addresses. When no one answered the bell at 815 Utica Avenue at 8:00 A.M., the investigator placed a letter in the door to the apartment. Inasmuch as the law office at 1295 Herkimer Street was closed at both 8:30 A.M. and 3:30 P.M., he left the letter, which warned that if answers to the Reid and sua sponte complaints were not received by November 13, 2006, a motion for respondent's interim suspension would be made, in a mail slot in the security gate.

On November 9, 2006, the Grievance Committee's investigator called the telephone number listed for the 815 Utica Avenue residence. A female answered and promptly hung up when the investigator asked to speak to the respondent. On November 16, 2006, the Grievance Committee again tried calling the respondent's law office. The answering machine stated that it was not accepting messages.

In response to a further request from the Grievance Committee, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service revealed that the Herkimer Street law office is seldom used and that the respondent "comes around at least once a month to pick up the mail." The letter carrier for 815 Utica Avenue advised that a family was living above the closed law office at 815 Utica Avenue but appeared to be moving out. No change of address was submitted.

Based on the respondent's testimony that he was receiving a pension from his service as a corrections officer, the Grievance Committee subpoenaed the New York City Employee's Retirement System (NYCERS) to obtain the respondent's current address. According to NYCERS, the respondent's current address was 815 Utica Avenue.

On October 15, 2007, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service confirmed that the respondent was still receiving mail at that address and had been "put out" of the building at 1295 Herkimer Street a year before.

By letter dated October 15, 2007, sent via regular and certified mail, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Scott complaint within 10 days. The respondent neither submitted an answer nor requested additional time in which to do so.

The Grievance Committee then sent the respondent a letter dated October 17, 2007, via certified and regular mail, directing him to appear at its offices on October 30, 2007, with his answers to the Reid and sua sponte complaints and files on those matters and to be prepared to testify with respect to those matters. The respondent failed to appear.

The certified letter sent with respect to the Scott complaint was returned to the Grievance Committee "unclaimed" on November 9, 2007. The letter sent via regular first class mail was not returned. To date, the respondent has not answered the Reid, sua sponte, or Scott complaints.

On January 17, 2008, the Grievance Committee filed an order to show cause seeking the respondent's interim suspension, and a return date of February 14, 2008, was set. The Grievance Committee investigator has set forth a detailed affidavit of his efforts to effect personal service. These include three visits to the respondent's last known address at 815 Utica Avenue, a search of New York City real estate records to find that the respondent had purchased a home at 145-38 115th Avenue, Jamaica, two visits to that residence, a motor vehicle search of two cars parked at the Jamaica residence which were registered to the respondent at a Grant Avenue, Brooklyn, address, and a visit to those premises. At the Jamaica residence, the investigator spoke with the respondent's wife who advised that she had not heard from the respondent for approximately three months and was unaware of his whereabouts. At the Grant Avenue residence, the investigator spoke with the respondent's aunt, who advised that she had not spoken to the respondent in three months and suspected that he was out of the country along with his parents, who own the Utica Avenue property. Both women were asked to have the respondent call the Grievance Committee if they heard from him.

A petition dated January 16, 2008, and containing one charge of failure to cooperate is annexed to the Grievance Committee's order to show cause.

Although served with the motion papers at three locations in accordance with the directives for substituted service as set forth in an order to show cause of this court dated January 17, 2008, the respondent has failed to reply.

Based on the foregoing, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) pending further order of this court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report, and the Grievance Committee is directed to continue to serve the respondent in the manner designated by the order to show cause dated January 17, 2008.

PRUDENTI, P.J., RIVERA, SPOLZINO, SKELOS and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court