Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M277375

E/sl

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2015-00923 In the Matter of Albert Jairam Baldeo, a disbarred attorney. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Albert Jairam Baldeo, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2509800)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by Albert Jairam Baldeo for leave to reargue a disciplinary proceeding against him, which was determined by an opinion and order of this Court dated March 4, 2020, and, upon reargument, to impose a five year suspension, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. Separate motion by Mr. Baldeo for leave to renew the disciplinary proceeding, and, upon renewal, to annul the sanction imposed and for diversion to a monitoring program approved by the Court based on certain "medical afflictions" or, in the alternative, to impose a five-year suspension, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. Mr. Baldeo was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on December 16, 1992. By decision and order on motion dated June 19, 2015, this Court, inter alia, immediately suspended Mr. Baldeo based upon his conviction of a serious crime pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f). By opinion and order of this Court dated March 4, 2020, Mr. Baldeo was disbarred from the practice of law, effective immediately.

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

ORDERED that the motion for leave to reargue is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion, inter alia, for leave to renew is granted to the extent that leave to renew is granted and, upon renewal, the Court adheres to the prior determination, and the motion is otherwise denied.

In support of the motion for leave to reargue, Albert Jairam Baldeo did not establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law. Moreover, the mitigating evidence or the medical evidence submitted in support of the motion for leave to renew does not warrant a change in the discipline imposed.

LASALLE, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON, and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Acting Clerk of the Court