Matter of Choi, Yohan; Grievance Committee for Second, Eleventh, and T
Motion No: 2017-04273
Slip Opinion No: 2017 NY Slip Op 93006(U)
Decided on November 20, 2017
Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports.


Supreme Court of the State of New York

Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M240148

E/afa

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

FRANCESCA CONNOLLY, JJ.

2017-04273

In the Matter of Yohan Choi,

and attorney and counselor-at-law.

Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh,

and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner;

Yohan Choi, respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 4047858)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4) based on his conviction on February 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 USC § 1956, for which he was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release, and was directed, inter alia, to pay a fine of $1,000. The Grievance Committee contends that conspiracy to commit money laundering is essentially similar to the New York felony of conspiracy to commit money laundering in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.10(1) and § 470.15, a class E felony. In opposition, the respondent contends that there is no admission by the respondent of the value of the property involved in the transaction, which is a necessary element under the New York felony statute relied upon by the Grievance Committee, and requests that the matter be referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report, based upon the respondent's conviction of a serious crime. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on September 18, 2002.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the respondent, Yohan Choi, is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) as a result of his conviction of a serious crime, continuing until further order of this Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Yohan Choi, shall promptly comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred and suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); 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, Yohan Choi, 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 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(i), the respondent, Yohan Choi, is directed to show cause at a hearing pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(iii) before a Special Referee, appointed herein, why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made, based on his conviction of a serious crime; and it is further,

ORDERED that this matter is referred to the Hon. Patricia M. DiMango, 330 East 38th Street, Suite 23C, New York, NY 10016-2759, as Special Referee, to hear and report, with the hearing to be conducted within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and to submit a report, which contains her findings on any mitigating or aggravating factors, and a recommendation as to whether the respondent has demonstrated why a final order of public discipline should not be made, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and CONNOLLY , JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court