Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M162374

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

2013-04717 In the Matter of Rony Princivil, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Rony Princivil, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2864288)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District: (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(ii) and (iii), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his admissions and other uncontroverted evidence; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated April 12, 2013; and (3) to refer 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 Second Judicial Department on February 4, 1998.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed 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)(ii) and (iii), the respondent, Rony Princivil, 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, Rony Princivil, 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, Rony Princivil, 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 Tenth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against Rony Princivil, based on the verified petition dated April 12, 2013; and it is further,

ORDERED that Robert A. Green, Chief Counsel, 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 the issues raised by the verified petition dated April 12, 2013, and any answer thereto, are referred to the Honorable Gary Weber, 64C Old Riverhead Road, PO Box 1588, Westhampton, N.Y. 11978, as Special Referee to hear and report, including 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 within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent, Rony Princivil, shall serve a copy of his answer to the petition upon the Grievance Committee and the Special Referee, and file the original with the Clerk of the Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Rony Princivil, 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 admissions and other uncontroverted evidence.

By complaint dated June 22, 2012, Marie M. Saint Cyr alleged that the respondent failed to remit settlement proceeds due her from a personal injury action for which he was retained.

At his first examination under oath (hereinafter EUO) at the office of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, on October 23, 2012, the respondent acknowledged that in or about 2003, he was retained to represent Ms. Saint Cyr in a personal injury action, which settled for $40,000 on or about August 17, 2011. The respondent deposited the settlement proceeds into a trust account at Washington Mutual Bank (now Chase Bank) entitled "Rony Princivil, P.C., Attorney Trust Account" (hereinafter the Washington Mutual account). By letter dated September 23, 2011, the respondent advised Ms. Saint Cyr about the settlement, and remitted two checks to her from the Washington Mutual account representing her share of the proceeds. The checks were for $18,762.92 and $1,227.02, respectively. Both were mistakenly dated September 23, 2001. For unknown reasons, Ms. Saint Cyr waited until June 14, 2012, to cash the checks remitted to her by the respondent. The checks were returned, because the Washington Mutual account had been closed in the interim.

By letter dated August 22, 2012, the respondent advised the Grievance Committee that there had been a "security breach" in his Washington Mutual account, which required "immediate action." According to the respondent, the bank would not honor the two outstanding checks payable to Ms. Saint Cyr and, further, purportedly advised him to wait until Ms. Saint Cyr contacted him before advising her that the account had been closed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the respondent conceded at his first EUO that he should have contacted Ms. Saint Cyr.

Prior to the first EUO, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent provide banking information for his Washington Mutual account (where the Saint Cyr settlement proceeds were deposited) and his new trust account (where the Saint Cyr settlement proceeds were purportedly transferred). The respondent provided some banking information, albeit incomplete, for a business account unrelated to the subject transaction. Additionally, the respondent provided some banking information for a trust account at Chase Bank entitled "Rony Princivil PC Attorney Trust Account IOLA" (hereinafter the Chase Bank account) into which he purportedly transferred Ms. Saint Cyr's settlement proceeds. However, the March 2012 statement for the Chase Bank account had an ending balance of $15,235.82, which was below the amount the respondent was required to preserve on Ms. Saint Cyr's behalf. At his first EUO the respondent was asked about his apparent failure to preserve the Saint Cyr funds. He stated: "I guess it was spent."

Following the first EUO, the Grievance Committee subpoenaed the respondent's trust account records from Washington Mutual and Chase Bank, relative to the deposit and supposed transfer of the Saint Cyr funds. A review of those records revealed that the Chase Bank account bore no relationship to the Saint Cyr transaction. After the settlement proceeds were deposited into the Washington Mutual account, on August 17, 2011, the balance on deposit in that account fell below the amount the respondent was required to preserve on Ms. Saint Cyr's behalf, to $17,401.94 on September 26, 2011, and to $5,177.94 on October 28, 2011. The Washington Mutual records reflect various wire transfers out of the account, into non-trust accounts identified by the respondent at his first EUO, following the deposit of the Saint Cyr settlement proceeds.

On February 15, 2013, the respondent appeared at the Grievance Committee's office for a second EUO, to discuss the subpoenaed bank records. At that time, the respondent reiterated that he had transferred the funds belonging to Ms. Saint Cyr from the Washington Mutual account to the Chase Bank account. Confronted with banking records demonstrating that Ms. Saint Cyr's funds were depleted by wire transfers from the Washington Mutual account to non-trust accounts long before the Chase Bank account was opened, the respondent could not provide an explanation.

In opposition to the motion, the respondent states that he is a sole practitioner, and is the only financial support for his wife and three children. He asserts that he did not intend to hurt Ms. Saint Cyr, but concedes that his escrow balance was "less than required." He maintains that Ms. Saint Cyr "receive[d] her full settlement check immediately upon her request," but offers no proof as to when, or in what fashion she was ultimately paid.

Based upon the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(ii) and (iii), pending further order of this Court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court