Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M94223

E/cb

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

STEVEN W. FISHER

ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

2009-07025 In the Matter of Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Regina M. Waytowich, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2748127)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for an order: (1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law until further order of the court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), based upon her obstruction of the Grievance Committee's investigation of a sua sponte complaint regarding her failure to re-register as an attorney and her uncontroverted failure to register for four consecutive registration periods; and (2) authorizing it to commence a disciplinary proceeding against respondent based upon a petition dated July 15, 2009. 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 29, 1996, under the name Regina Marie Waytowich.

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 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), the respondent, Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, 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, Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, 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, Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, 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 Tenth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, based on the petition dated July 15, 2009; and it is further,

ORDERED that Rita E. Adler, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, 150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788, 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 order, the respondent, Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, 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 John F. Mulholland, Esq., 3 Mayflower Drive, Hicksville, N.Y. 11801, as Special Referee to hear and report, together with his findings 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, Regina M. Waytowich, admitted as Regina Marie Waytowich, 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 established pattern of failing to cooperate with an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District and uncontroverted evidence of her failure to re-register, as required by Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR § 118.1.

By letter dated August 16, 2006, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that she was the subject of a sua sponte complaint and investigation based upon her failure to re-register as an attorney with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA) and advised her to immediately comply with Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR § 118.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator by re-registering. The respondent was asked to submit proof of compliance as well as a written answer explaining her failure to re-register within 30 days. The respondent failed to comply.

By letter dated May 18, 2007, the Grievance Committee reminded the respondent that her failure to cooperate constituted professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaint and requested a reply within 10 days. The respondent still failed to comply.

By letter dated August 20, 2007, sent via certified mail, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that it was authorized to move to suspend an attorney who failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation and demanded that she submit, within 5 days, an answer to the sua sponte complaint along with any explanation for her failure to timely cooperate and confirmation of her registration status. The respondent still failed to comply.

By letter dated January 7, 2008, hand delivered to the respondent's home address and signed for by her mother, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer within 10 days explaining her failures to re-register and to comply with its previous letters. The Grievance Committee further advised the respondent that her failure to comply with its demands constitutes grounds for immediate suspension. The respondent still failed to comply.

On May 5, 2008, the Grievance Committee served the respondent with a judicial subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum demanding her appearance and production of documents on May 23, 2008. The respondent appeared and testified on May 23, 2008 but failed to re-register. She was directed to resolve the matter by bringing her registration status current. The respondent failed to re-register as required.

By certified letter dated July 2, 2008, the respondent was directed to re-register and submit proof of her compliance within 10 days of her receipt of that letter. The Grievance Committee advised the respondent that her interim suspension would be sought if she failed to comply. Notwithstanding a postal receipt reflecting delivery of that letter on July 3, 2008, the respondent failed to re-register as required. To date, OCA records reflect that the respondent has failed to re-register for the 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07, and 2008-09 biennial periods.

Notwithstanding personal service of the order to show cause and verified petition upon the respondent on July 25, 2009, the respondent has neither submitted a reply nor requested additional time in which to do so.

Based on the established pattern of failing to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's legitimate investigation, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted without opposition, the respondent is found to constitute an immediate threat to the public based on her persistent failure to cooperate, she is suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), that the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against respondent based on the petition dated July 15, 2009, the respondent is directed to submit an answer within 20 days, and the issues raised are referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, FISHER and BELEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court