Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M164066

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, PJ

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

MARK C. DILLON, JJ.

2013-06689 In the Matter of Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Thomas C. Sledjeski, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2245470)

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)(i), (ii), and (iii), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in connection with an investigation into his professional conduct, his substantial admissions under oath, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated June 6, 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 March 22, 1989, under the name Thomas C. Sledjeski II.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed 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), (ii), and (iii), the respondent, Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, 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, Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, 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, Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, 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 Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, based on the verified petition dated June 6, 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 and any answer thereto are referred to John P. Clarke, 35 Broad Street, Williston Park, N.Y. 11596, as Special Referee, to hear and report, and to submit a report, which includes his findings on the issues, 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, Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, shall serve a copy of his answer to the petition upon the Grievance Committee and the Special Referee, and file the original with the Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Thomas C. Sledjeski, admitted as Thomas C. Sledjeski II, 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 cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District in connection with an investigation into his professional conduct, his substantial admissions under oath, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct. This motion emanates from the Grievance Committee's investigation of joint complaints of professional misconduct filed by JRP Old Riverhead, Ltd. (hereinafter JRP), and its attorneys, on or about November 16, 2012, against the respondent, arising out of his actions as attorney for the Town of Southampton in an action entitled JRP Old Riverhead, Ltd. v Town of Southampton, commenced in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under Index No. 26434/96 (hereinafter the Southampton action), and his actions as a defendant in related litigation entitled JRP Old Riverhead, Ltd. v Sledjeski, commenced in the same court under Index No. 1909/08 (hereinafter the Sledjeski action).

In the Southampton action, JRP claimed that Town roads adjoining JRP's real property had insufficient drainage, and that flooding from those roads damaged JRP's property. JRP's complaint sought money damages as well as equitable relief, specifically, to compel the Town to remedy the drainage conditions. The respondent, representing the Town, entered into a stipulation on the record, in open court, on July 9, 2001, settling the matter. The settlement required the Town to pay JRP $8,500 in damages and complete the necessary repair work, at its own expense, no later than November 30, 2001. The respondent stated on the record that he had consulted with the Town and that the Town had agreed to the settlement. As later developed, the respondent apparently had authority to settle the case for $8,500, but did not have authority from the Town Board to agree to the repair work.

When the Town failed to repair the drainage conditions, the Supreme Court held a compliance conference on or about July 31, 2003. At that conference, the respondent entered into a so-ordered written stipulation on behalf of the Town, pursuant to which the Town agreed to repair the drainage condition by October 1, 2003, or pay liquidated damages of $150 per day until the work was completed. The Town did not complete the work, as stipulated, and the respondent issued, or caused to be issued, from the operating account of the law firm he was then affiliated with, checks in the aggregate sum of $18,900, for liquidated damages.

JRP thereafter moved, in or about August 2004, to have the Town held in contempt for failing to comply with the July 2001 settlement and/or the July 2003 stipulation. In reply, the respondent asserted that the drainage repairs would be done in approximately four weeks. On July 27, 2005, the date the contempt hearing was scheduled to begin, the respondent entered into another so-ordered written stipulation, pursuant to which the Town agreed to a new work plan, to be completed by January 27, 2006. That same day, the respondent also agreed, on the record, in open court, that the Town would pay to JRP, within 90 days, the sum of $76,350 in accrued liquidated damages pursuant to the July 2003 stipulation, and that judgment would be entered against the Town if it did not timely make said payment. In turn, JRP agreed to forego the accrual of additional liquidated damages of $150 per day through January 27, 2006, when the repair work was scheduled to be completed. Although the respondent represented to counsel for JRP that the Town had issued a check, and was set to begin repairs, the Town did not, in fact, comply with the terms of the July 2005 stipulation. A judgment dated November 16, 2005, was entered in the Southampton action and served upon the Town, on or about November 29, 2005.

The Town, now represented by different counsel, moved by to vacate the judgment, asserting that the Town Board had not authorized the respondent to agree to make the repairs in the 2001 stipulation or enter into the subsequent stipulations, in July 2003 and July 2005, which were made without its knowledge. In an affirmation and a supplemental affidavit submitted in support of the motion, the respondent stated that he had authority only to agree to the $8,500 monetary settlement in the July 2001 stipulation, and that he agreed to the repairs without the authority or knowledge of the Town Board. He also stated that he had entered into the July 2003 and July 2005 stipulations without the knowledge or approval of the Town Board. By order dated May 1, 2006, the Supreme Court found that the 2001 stipulation was enforceable on the ground that the Town had ratified it. However, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and the July 2005 stipulation. On appeal, in a decision and order dated October 23, 2007, this Court held that the July 2001 stipulation was enforceable, but remitted the matter for a hearing and new determination as to the validity of the July 2005 stipulation, and stated that "the validity of the 2003 stipulation . . . must be explored to determine issues of ratification and estoppel." The Southampton action was eventually discontinued.

In January 2008, JRP commenced an action against the respondent in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging claims for fraud as well as violations of Judiciary Law § 487 and 22 NYCRR 130.1., based upon the respondent's conduct during his representation of the Town in the Southampton action. The respondent defaulted and the Supreme Court directed an inquest on the issue of damages. Prior to the inquest, the respondent moved to vacate his default, which was denied by order of the Supreme Court dated October 30, 2010. Following the inquest, the Supreme Court entered judgment in the sum of $664,163.02, based on the treble damages provision of Judiciary Law § 487. Thereafter, the respondent failed to obey or comply with a post judgment subpoena duces tecum dated September 23, 2011, requiring him to appear for an examination and produce documents relevant to enforcement of the judgment, and the Supreme Court granted JRP's motion to hold the respondent in civil contempt. The respondent did not purge the contempt, and the Supreme Court issued a warrant for his arrest on March 20, 2013.

On or about November 29, 2012, January 2, 2013, and February 22, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent letters to the respondent, via certified mail, return receipt requested, and/or regular mail, addressed to him at the law office address registered with the Office of Court Administration. The respondent failed to answer any of the letters. The respondent was served, at his home address, with a judicial subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, returnable April 25, 2013, directing him to appear at the Grievance Committee's office for an examination under oath, and to produce relevant documents. The respondent failed to comply.

The respondent has neither opposed the motion nor submitted any response relative thereto.

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)(i),(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 DILLON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court