Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M198417

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

MARK C. DILLON

RUTH C. BALKIN

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

2015-01865 In the Matter of Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Henry D. Becker, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2965218)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law pending the consideration of charges of professional misconduct against him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(l)(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, his substantial admissions under oath, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to authorize the institution and prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon a verified petition dated May 7, 2015; 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 First Judicial Department on March 22, 1999.

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, Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, 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, Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, 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, Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, 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 Ninth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, based on the verified petition dated May 7, 2015; and it is further,

ORDERED that Gary L. Casella, Chief Counsel, Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Crosswest Office Center, 399 Knollwood Road, Suite 200, White Plains, N.Y. 10603, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; 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, Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, shall serve a copy of his answer to the petition upon the Grievance Committee and the Special Referee, appointed herein, and file the original with the Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the verified petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Stewart A. Rosenwasser, 201 Ward Street, Suite 2B, Montgomery, N.Y. 12549, as Special Referee, to hear and report, and to submit a report, which contains 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 if the respondent, Henry D. Becker, admitted as Henry Dana Becker, 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, his substantial admissions under oath, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.

The instant application emanates from an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District of multiple complaints of professional misconduct filed against the respondent.

The Ammena Rahiman Complaint

In September 2013, the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Ammena Rahiman. In March 2004 Ms. Rahiman's mother passed away, leaving a life insurance policy in the amount of $100,000 that named her as the beneficiary. Ms. Rahiman executed a power of attorney in favor of the respondent, so that he could obtain the life insurance proceeds on her behalf. Ms. Rahiman alleges that upon the respondent's advice, she agreed to invest the $100,000 insurance proceeds in a real estate company that was headed by the respondent's life-long friend, Alan Ritter. Several months later, the respondent discovered that Ms. Rahiman's mother had a second life insurance policy in the amount of $20,000 that also named Rahiman as the beneficiary. Ms. Rahiman alleges that the respondent used the power of attorney that she had previously executed for him to obtain the insurance proceeds, and, before gaining her consent, he invested the full amount with Ritter. Although Ms. Rahiman received periodic payments on her investment, after a while, the payments ceased. In fact, in September, 2012, Ritter entered a plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to three counts of wire fraud, and was sentenced to a 36 month period of incarceration for his conduct in connection with his fraudulent real estate company.

By letter dated November 25, 2013, the respondent submitted a response to the Rahiman grievance complaint, which included, inter alia, an affidavit from Ritter. The Ritter affidavit was notarized by the respondent on November 25, 2013, while Ritter was incarcerated in a federal prison in North Carolina. At the time that the respondent notarized Ritter's signature on the affidavit, he was not a licensed notary in North Carolina.

On March 20, 2014, the respondent appeared at the offices of the Grievance Committee for an examination under oath (hereinafter EUO) concerning the pending grievance complaints, including the Rahiman complaint. At that time, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent to thereafter produce certain documents, including, inter alia, records relating to his receipt of the Rahiman insurance proceeds.

By letter dated July 1, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent that it had not received the items requested at his EUO and directed him to comply within 10 days. The respondent was provided an additional ten (10) days in which to comply. The respondent failed to submit the requested items to the Grievance Committee.

On July 16, 2014, the respondent appeared at the offices of the Grievance Committee for a continued EUO, and admitted, under oath, that he had failed to comply with the Grievance Committee's prior production requests. During the course of the continued EUO, the Grievance Committee renewed its request that the respondent to provide the outstanding documents. Additionally, the Grievance Committee asked the respondent to produce other documents and records. The respondent agreed to provide items that were not in storage by July 30, 2014, and agreed to provide the items that were in storage by August 13, 2014. Thereafter, the respondent failed to provide any of the requested documents or records to the Grievance Committee.

On or about September 5, 2014, the respondent appeared at the offices of the Grievance Committee, and received a 10-day extension to produce the requested items. Although the respondent submitted a partial response to the Grievance Committee by letter dated October 17, 2014, to date, the respondent has failed to produce, among other things, records relating to his receipt and disbursement of the Rahiman insurance proceeds.

During the course of the investigation of the Rahiman complaint, the Grievance Committee was advised that Rahiman and Gennaro Zingone had sued the respondent and Ritter in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. By order dated July 14, 2014, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, found, inter alia, that the respondent failed to comply with the discovery directives set forth in the so-ordered preliminary conference stipulation, and failed to appear at the last two compliance conferences. The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's "repeated conduct over the course of discovery evinces contumacious disregard for discovery obligations," and struck his amended answer including the affirmative defenses, counterclaim and cross claim.

The Respondent's Failure to Re-Register as an Attorney

By letter dated October 1, 2013, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that it had commenced a sua sponte investigation based upon his alleged failure to re-register as an attorney with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA), for the 2013-2014 biennial registration period. He was directed to submit an answer within 10 days, and to provide evidence that he had re-registered within 45 days. To date, the respondent has failed to re-register as an attorney with the OCA for the 2013-2014 biennial registration period.

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)(l)(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, DILLON, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court