Matter of Kramer; Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicia
Motion No: 1999-01961
Slip Opinion No: 2009 NY Slip Op 77188(U)
Decided on July 2, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M88933

E/cb

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.

REINALDO E. RIVERA

ROBERT A. SPOLZINO

MARK C. DILLON

FRED T. SANTUCCI, JJ.

1999-01961

In the Matter of Peter Kramer,

admitted as Peter Lawrence Kramer,

a disbarred attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 1110667)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondent for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in Second Judicial Department on January 17, 1979, under the name Peter Lawrence Kramer. By decision and order on motion of this court dated May 27, 1999, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law pending further order of the court as a result of his conviction of a serious crime. By opinion and order of this court dated September 18, 2000, he was disbarred based on his conviction, after a trial, of two counts of racketeering conspiracy, a federal felony, in violation of 18 USC § 1962, for which he was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment. By decision and order on motion of this court dated January 16, 2008, the respondent's motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney, including but not limited to, the steps taken by the respondent to comply with 22 NYCRR 691.10, the dates of his imprisonment, the date of his release from prison, the disposition of any open legal cases brought against the respondent 's former law firm, and the nature of the respondent's wife's legal business.

Upon the papers submitted to the court, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

We find that the respondent does not demonstrate the requisite fitness and character to practice law.

MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, SPOLZINO, DILLON and SANTUCCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court