Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M180820

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

2014-06499 In the Matter of Joseph A. Rizzo, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Joseph A. Rizzo, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3011798)

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), 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; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated May 14, 2014; 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, 2000.

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), the respondent, Joseph A. Rizzo, 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, Joseph A. Rizzo, 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, Joseph A. Rizzo, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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 Joseph A Rizzo, based on the verified petition dated May 14, 2014; 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 Norma Giffords, Esq., c/o Randazzo & Giffords, PC, 3000 Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, N.Y. 11042, as Special Referee, to hear and report, and to submit a report, which contains her 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, Joseph A. Rizzo, 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, Joseph A. Rizzo, 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 six complaints of professional misconduct filed against him.

The Cortina Complaint

On September 5, 2013, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Albert E. Cortina, alleging, inter alia, failure to communicate and neglect regarding a property damage claim.

By letters dated December 20, 2013, mailed to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA), as well as his New York address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Cortina complaint, and requested his answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer either letter.

By letter dated February 24, 2014, hand-delivered to the respondent at his New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter, and once again requested his written answer to the Cortina complaint. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated March 17, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 20, 2014, and demanded his written answer to the Cortina complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Delivery of the Grievance Committee's letter was refused, and the respondent failed to answer.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the Cortina complaint and/or communicate with the Grievance Committee.

The Konashenko Complaint

On October 4, 2013, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Laura A. Konashenko, alleging, inter alia, neglect of a property damage claim.

By letter dated October 8, 2013, mailed to the respondent's New York address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Konashenko complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated November 6, 2013, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter, and once again requested his written answer to the Konashenko complaint. Although postal records reflect that the letter was delivered, the respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated December 11, 2013, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with copies of its prior letters and demanded his written answer to the Konashenko complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Although postal records reflect that the letter was delivered, the respondent failed to respond.

By letter dated December 19, 2013, mailed to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee once again informed the respondent of its receipt of the Konashenko complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated February 24, 2014, hand-delivered to the respondent at his New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with copies of its prior letters, and once again requested his written answer to the Konashenko complaint. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated March 17, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 19, 2013, and demanded his written answer to the Konashenko complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Delivery of the Grievance Committee's letter was refused, and the respondent failed to answer.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the Konashenko complaint and/or communicate with the Grievance Committee.

The Galitos Complaint

On December 11, 2013, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Peter Moulinos, Esq., on behalf of Gus Galitos and Eleni Galitos, alleging, inter alia, that the respondent neglected a breach of contract action.

By letter dated December 16, 2013, mailed to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, and by letter dated December 19, 2013, mailed to the respondent's New York address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Galitos complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated February 24, 2014, hand-delivered to the respondent at his New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 19, 2013, and once again requested his written answer to the Galitos complaint. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated March 17, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 16, 2013, and demanded his written answer to the Galitos complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Delivery of the Grievance Committee's letter was refused, and the respondent failed answer.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the Galitos complaint and/or communicate with the Grievance Committee.

The Petersen ComplaintOn December 12, 2013, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Thomas J. Petersen alleging, inter alia, neglect of an action against a title company.

By letter dated December 17, 2013, mailed to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Petersen complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated December 19, 2013, mailed to the respondent's New York address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Petersen complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated February 24, 2014, hand-delivered to the respondent at his New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 19, 2013, and once again requested his written answer to the Petersen complaint. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated March 17, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 19, 2013, and demanded his written answer to the Petersen complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Delivery of the Grievance Committee's letter was refused, and the respondent failed to answer.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the Petersen complaint and/or communicate with the Grievance Committee.

The Ottstadt Complaint

On or about December 16, 2013, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Ellen Ottstadt, alleging, inter alia, failure to communicate and failure to appear in court in connection with a breach of contract action.

By letter dated December 19, 2013, mailed to the respondent's New York address, and separate letter dated December 19, 2013, mailed to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Ottstadt complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer either letter.

By letter dated February 24, 2014, hand-delivered to the respondent at his New York address, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter, and once again requested his written answer to the Ottstadt complaint. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated March 17, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter dated December 19, 2013, and demanded his written answer to the Ottstadt complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Delivery of the Grievance Committee's letter was refused, and the respondent failed to answer.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the Ottstadt complaint and/or communicate with the Grievance Committee.

The Rodriguez Complaint

On February 19, 2014, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Jacqueline Rodriguez, alleging, inter alia, failure to communicate regarding a landlord/tenant matter.

By letter dated February 25, 2014, mailed to the respondent's New York address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of its receipt of the Rodriguez complaint, and requested his written answer thereto. The respondent failed to answer.

By letter dated March 17, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Pennsylvania address at which the respondent is registered with OCA, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of its prior letter, and demanded his written answer to the Rodriguez complaint, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i). Delivery of the Grievance Committee's letter was refused, and the respondent failed to answer.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the Rodriguez complaint and/or communicate with the Grievance Committee.

The respondent has submitted no opposition or any other response to the motion, which was personally served upon him on June 20, 2014, at the Pennsylvania address at which he is registered with OCA.

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), 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, PJ, MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS, and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court