NYCourts.govNew York State Unified Court System

Departmental Disciplinary Committee


Part 603-Conduct of Attorneys

Part 605-Rules and Procedures of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee

Updated Part 1200-Rules of Professional Conduct effective April 1, 2009

Background Check Request Form file in PDF format

Complaint Form file in PDF format

Complaint Against Lawyers Brochure file in PDF format

Past Annual Reports:
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014file in PDF format

Past Disciplinary Decisions


Where to Send Your Complaint

What is the Committee

What the Committee Does

What the Committee Cannot Do

How to File a Complaint


How Complaints Are Processed


How Long is the Process


Disciplinary Resignations

Other Sources of Help

Disciplinary Decisions

back to top


When you hire a lawyer you have the right to have your legal matter handled in a professional and ethical manner.

Unfortunately, there may be times when you feel that you have not received the treatment you deserve. Most of the time such problems can be settled between you and your lawyer, either by talking it over or by dismissing the lawyer and hiring a new one. However, on occasion a lawyer's conduct may appear so improper that you feel a complaint to a local disciplinary authority is warranted. Most complaints are filed by clients. However, you may file one even if you are not that lawyer's client.

back to top


If you believe a lawyer has behaved in an unethical or dishonest manner, you may file a complaint with:

Departmental Disciplinary Committee
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
First Judicial Department
61 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10006

Telephone (212) 401-0800

Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 A.M.-5 P.M.

The Committee only handles complaints against lawyers whose offices are in Manhattan or the Bronx. Similar disciplinary committees exist in the other counties of New York State. If you call us, we will be happy to furnish you with addresses for the other disciplinary committees in the state.

back to top


The Committeeback to top is composed of lawyers and a smaller number of non-lawyers appointed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department (the "Court"). Each member is selected by the Court because of his or her knowledge of the law and reputation for integrity and fairness. They serve voluntarily and without pay, and the Committee has no affiliation with a bar association. The Committee is assisted by a full-time paid staff of about 45 which includes lawyers, investigators, paralegals and clerical assistants. The staff screens and investigates complaints and prosecutes those complaints that may warrant disciplinary action.

back to top


The purpose of the Committeeback to top is to protect the public and the legal profession by ensuring that lawyers adhere to the ethical standards set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct (the "Rules"). The Committee protects the public by reviewing and investigating complaints against lawyers and by recommending sanctions against those who are proven to have violated the Rules. It protects the legal profession by enforcing high standards of conduct, while at the same time ensuring that complaints are dealt with fairly.

The Committee has the authority to take the following actions, depending upon the seriousness of the lawyer's conduct and the circumstances surrounding it:

  • Refer the complaint to a special Mediation Program, in which a trained volunteer mediator meets with the lawyer and the client to assist them in resolving the complaint privately;
  • Issue a private sanction to the lawyer (a "Letter or Admonition");
  • Recommend to the Court that the lawyer receive a public condemnation ("censure");
  • Recommend to the Court that the lawyer's right to practice law be taken away for a specified period of time ("suspension"); or
  • Recommend to the Court that the lawyer's license to practice law be taken away ("disbarment").
back to top


In response to complaints, the Committee is limited to disciplining the offending lawyer or referring the matter to a mediator (as outlined above). The Committee cannot:

  • Give you legal advice or represent you in a civil suit against your lawyer, including a suit for legal malpractice or any other claim. If you wish to obtain money from your lawyer on your claim of improper conduct, you should consult an attorney knowledgeable in that field for advice and representation. There are time limits for making certain claims, so you should seek legal advice promptly, whether or not you file a complaint.
  • Determine fee disputes between you and your lawyer. Lawyers are required to participate in mandatory arbitration of fee disputes subject to certain conditions.
  • Collect money for you. If an attorney owes you money, and you have not obtained a judgment, you should consider hiring a lawyer to collect your money.
  • Generally speaking, immediately act on your complaint if there is pending litigation as to the same material and substantial issues.

If you are in doubt as to whether the Committee can help you, you may contact the Committee for guidance:

Departmental Disciplinary Committee
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
First Judicial Department
61 Broadway, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10006

Telephone (212) 401-0800

Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 A.M.-5 P.M.

back to top


It is helpful, but not required that you use our complaint formback to top for your complaint. If you choose not to use the Committee's form, make sure that your written complaint contains the following information:

  • Your name, address, and telephone number;
  • The name, address, and telephone number of the lawyer against whom you are making the complaint; and,
  • A detailed and concise statement of the lawyer's conduct that is the subject of the complaint.

Whether or not you use the Committee's form, your complaint must be signed. Submit any documents (send copies and keep the originals) which are related to, or substantiate your complaint. Send the complaint and related documents to the Committee.

back to top


There is no charge for submitting a complaint to the Committee. Review, investigation, and prosecution of your complaint are paid for by the State of New York. If you hire an attorney to assist you in the complaint process, you are responsible for the lawyer's fee.

back to top


A. Initial Screening

Every complaint is given a docket number and initially reviewed by an attorney on the Committee staff. If it is determined that your complaint involves a matter falling outside our Committee's authority, the staff will notify you that your complaint is being rejected. A rejection does not mean we did not believe you. It only means that what you said the attorney did either was not a violation of any specific rule of the Rules or we cannot pursue it for one of the following reasons:

  • A major portion of your complaint is in essence a fee dispute over which the Committee has no jurisdiction.
  • The Committee cannot act on your complaint for other reasons having to do with jurisdiction. For example, that the lawyer's registration address is not in Manhattan or the Bronx; the lawyer has already been suspended or disbarred; the lawyer is deceased; or there is a lawsuit pending that involves the same issues.
  • Your complaint involves collecting a debt that a lawyer owes to you and you have not exhausted available civil remedies.
  • There appears to be little likelihood that your complaint alleging professional misconduct can be proven due to the passage of time, the unavailability of evidence or applicable law.

B. Initial Investigation

If the initial screening reveals that the complaint is within our Committee's authority and may involve an ethical violation, the legal staff will carry out an initial investigation of the case. During this investigation, the attorney about whom you complained will be sent a copy of your complaint and will be given the opportunity to respond to it. You, in turn, will be given the opportunity to reply to the lawyer's response.

C. Second Screening

Following the initial investigation of your complaint, including a review of the evidence submitted, the lawyer's response to the complaint, and your reply, our Committee will determine whether additional investigation is needed and, if so, a further investigation is undertaken. At that point an attorney on the Committee staff reviews the entire file again and makes a recommendation as to whether a violation of a rule warranting discipline has occurred. That recommendation is based on an assessment of the merits of the complaint, the evidence offered by both sides and other relevant factors.

D. Dismissal

If the investigation reveals that the lawyer did not violate a specific rule in the Rules, or if it appears that the complaint cannot be proven, the Committee may decide that your complaint should be dismissed. Before a complaint is dismissed, however, the staff recommendation, as well as the entire file, will be reviewed by the Chief Counsel and again independently by at least one Committee member, who is a lawyer, chosen on an alternating basis. If the member agrees, you will be notified in writing that your complaint is to be dismissed, but that you may request reconsideration of that decision by a different Committee member by notifying the Committee within 30 days of the notice of dismissal to you.

E. The Committee's Mediation Program

In some cases that do not involve serious ethical violations and are unlikely to result in a disciplinary sanction against a lawyer, the Committee may decide to send your complaint to mediation, which is a private, informal way to resolve a dispute. The mediator is a neutral third person who tries to help disputing parties reach a mutually agreeable solution of their differences. In both Manhattan and the Bronx there is a roster of mediators who are trained to deal with disputes between lawyers and their clients. The mediation will involve, at a minimum, telephone contact between you, the lawyer, and the mediator. It may also involve a mediation conference at which you, the lawyer and the mediator will be present. The mediation program has been highly successful in resolving disputes between clients and their lawyers, particularly in cases where the complaint was generated by a failure in communication. Should mediation fail, the Committee will determine how to proceed as reflected above.

F. Further Investigation

If the staff attorney after second screening recommends that it is likely that there has been a violation of a Disciplinary Rule, that recommendation is reviewed by the Chief Counsel or the First Deputy Chief Counsel and if the recommendation is accepted, the case is assigned to one of the staff attorneys to conduct further investigation which may require issuing subpoenas for documents and records as well as interviewing witnesses including at times the complainant as well as the attorney whose conduct is being investigated.

G. Private Letter of Admonition

In some cases, the investigation reveals that a lawyer has behaved unethically and deserves to be disciplined, but that the violation is not serious enough to warrant formal, public discipline. In such cases, our Committee will send the lawyer a "Letter of Admonition." This is a private sanction which states that the Committee finds the lawyer's conduct to be in violation of the Rules. For example, such letters are sent to first-time offenders who neglect a legal matter or fail to return client property promptly. If a Letter of Admonition is sent to the lawyer about whom you complained, by law we are not emitted to show you a copy of that letter, but you will receive a notice informing you that such a letter was sent, that it will be kept in the lawyer's permanent file and that it may be used against the lawyer should there be any future ethical violation.

H. Formal Charges

In a case involving an allegation of serious unethical conduct that can be proven, or a case against a lawyer having a history of other repeated provable offenses, it may be determined that formal charges should be brought against the lawyer. Formal charges (the first step required for the imposition of public censure, suspension or disbarment) are initially prepared by the legal staff, and require the approval of at least two Policy Committee members.

I. Hearing and Review by the Court

If formal charges are brought against a lawyer, the Court will appoint a Referee to conduct the hearing. Staff attorneys under the supervision of the Chief and Deputy Counsels develop and prosecute the case against the offending lawyer before the Referee. You may be asked to testify along with other witnesses. After the hearing, which is similar to a formal trial, the Referee issues a Report and Recommendation as to whether the charges have been proven, and rec om ends an appropriate sanction. The entire proceeding is then reviewed by a Hearing Panel assigned by the Chairman of the Committee. It generally consists of five or six Committee members, one of whom is a public member. If the Hearing Panel finds that the charges have been proven, its Report and Determination as to sanction (options) the hearing transcript, the evidence introduced at the hearing, and the Referee's Report and Recommendation are then sent to the Court. The Court, after its review, may confirm, reject or modify the Referee's findings and/or the Hearing Panel's recommendation. Only the Court has the authority to impose public discipline on the lawyer, including censure, suspension or disbarment.

back to top


During the investigation and resolution of a disciplinary complaint, the entire disciplinary proceeding, including the existence of your complaint, is, by law, confidential and the Committee may not disclose this to the public [New York Judiciary Law, Section 90(10)]. However, if a recommendation for a public sanction is forwarded to, and upheld by, the Court, the Court's written decision and the entire record of the proceedings are available to the public for inspection.

back to top


Generally speaking, the initial screening of a complaint will take about four to six weeks. You may contact the Committee in writing to review the status of the complaint. Because of Section 90(10) of the Judiciary Law and the Committee's limited resources, telephone inquires cannot be processed. After the initial screening it is difficult to predict the Length of time a case will take because that depends on the gravity of the complaint. If a recommendation is made to dismiss the complaint after receipt of the lawyer's answer and your reply to that answer, generally you will be notified within six months of the filing of your complaint. If the recommendation is that a violation probably occurred, the time required for the additional investigation and prosecution phase varies with the seriousness and complexity of the case, the availability of witnesses and documentary evidence, the number of complaints being handled, and other factors. If your complaint results in formal charges and a hearing, and involves claims of attorney misconduct sufficient to justify suspension or disbarment, it may take a number of months before the proceedings are complete. On the other hand, if the charge is less serious and does not require a hearing (for example, if the result is mediation or a Letter of Admonition), the entire process is often completed more quickly. Every effort is made to act on each complaint quickly and efficiently. Consideration of a complaint may ultimately result in depriving a lawyer of the ability to practice his or her profession. Given its responsibility to you, as well as to the lawyer in question, the Committee must act with care.

back to top


Section 90 of the Judiciary Law and Court Rule 22 NYCRR §603.14 permit attorneys to apply for reinstatement to the practice of law after the period of suspension or disbarment. An attorney who has been disbarred or stricken from the roll of attorneys may not petition for reinstatement until the expiration of seven years from the effective date of disbarment (id.). Directions on what a petition for reinstatement must contain.

back to top


The Court permits an attorney to resign from the bar during an investigation by the Committee or after the filing of charges if the attorney submits an affidavit in compliance with 22 NYCRR §603.11, acknowledging that the attorney knows the nature of potential charges which are set forth in the affidavit and cannot defend against them. A resignation during the pendency of an investigation or after is the equivalent of disbarment.

back to top


There are various agencies that provide assistance in the areas in which our Committee cannot help you, or that can provide additional relief while your complaint is being processed by the Committee.

1. Lawyer Referral:

If you wish to locate a lawyer to replace the lawyer against whom you have complained, or to counsel you in connection with possible claims you may have against that lawyer, the following bar associations in our area have legal referral services:

For Manhattan:

Association of the Bar of the City of New York
42 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
(212) 626-7373

New York County Lawyer's Association
14 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 267-6646

For the Bronx:

Bronx County Bar Association
851 Grand Concourse
Room 124
Bronx, New York 10451
(7I8) 293-5600

2. Misappropriated Funds:

If you believe that a lawyer has misappropriated your money or other assets, you may wish to consult the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection concerning your right to reimbursement from that fund. Complete information about the fund and its procedures, its contact addresses and numbers, and claim forms may be found on the Lawyers' Fund Website ( Also, that organization may be reached at:

The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
119 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12210
(518) 434-1935 or
(1-800) 442-FUND

3. Fee Disputes:

If you are having a fee dispute with your present attorney and wish to have arbitration of that dispute, you should contact:

Joint Committee on Fee Disputes
14 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 267-6646, Ext. 218

The New York State Court System has established a Statewide Fee Dispute Resolution Program (FDRP) to resolve attorney-client disputes over legal fees through arbitration (and in some cases mediation). Please visit their website to see about whether the FDRP is right for you:

4. Mandatory Resolution of Fee Disputes:

If a fee dispute arises in a civil matter where the representation began after January I, 2002 and the amount involved is more than $1,000 and less than $50,000, resolution of the fee dispute is mandatory and will be conducted by:

Joint Committee on Fee Disputes
14 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 267-6646, Ext. 218

There is no mandatory resolution program for fee disputes in criminal matters. The Committee has no authority to resolve fee disputes in criminal matters.

5. Unauthorized Practice of Law:

If you feel that a non-attorney is improperly holding himself or herself out as an attorney or otherwise practicing law, you should contact:

For Manhattan:

District Attorney's Office
One Hogan Place
New York, NY 10013
(212) 335-9000

For the Bronx:

District Attorney's Office
198 East 161st Street
Bronx. New York 10451
(718) 590-2000

6. Criminal Conduct:

If you believe that your attorney is engaging in criminal conduct, you should contact:

For Manhattan:

District Attorney's Office
One Hogan Place
New York, NY 10013
(212) 335-8900

For the Bronx:

District Attorney's Office
198 East 161st Street
Bronx, New York 10451
(718) 590-2000

7. Judges:

To lodge a complaint against a judge, you should contact:

State Commission on Judicial Conduct
61 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10006
(212) 809-0566


We hope that this is helpful to answering your questions about how to bring a complaint against a lawyer in Manhattan or the Bronx, and what happens after you bring a complaint. The legal profession expects all lawyers to conduct themselves in an honest and ethical manner in accordance with the standards set by the Rules of Professional Conduct. We are committed to giving every complaint against a lawyer full and fair consideration in an expeditious manner, and imposing appropriate disciplinary sanctions against lawyers who do not meet the high ethical standards of the profession.

If you have additional general questions about this process, please contact our staff.

back to top


2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2014 Jan

January 7, 2010
Matter of Weinstein
Matter of Zuber

January 14, 2010
Matter of Markman
Matter of Snyder

February 4, 2010
Matter of Kressner

February 11, 2010
Matter of Shweky

February 16, 2010
Matter of Stahl

February 18, 2010
Matter of Morrissey

February 18, 2010
Matter of Roy

February 23, 2010
Matter of Harding

March 2, 2010
Matter of Jobi

March 11, 2010
Matter of Girshek

March 25, 2010
Matter of Gansman

April 15, 2010
Matter of Antoine
Matter of Stewart

April 20, 2010
Matter of Holubar

May 6, 2010
Matter of Auslander

May 11, 2010
Matter of Jones

May 13, 2010
Matter of Engram
Matter of Ligos

June 1, 2010
Matter of Isaac

June 8, 2010
Matter of Taylor

July 1, 2010
Matter of Coren
Matter of Kahn

July 6, 2010
Matter of Streit

July 20, 2010
Matter of Garbarini
Matter of Mahler

July 27, 2010
Matter of Hidetoshi Cho
Matter of Kressner
Matter of Salo

July 28, 2010
Matter of Selterman

August 17, 2010
Matter of Block
Matter of Militello
Matter of Walters

August 24, 2010
Matter of de los Santos
Matter of Sirkin
Matter of Topal

August 31, 2010
Matter of Caits
Matter of Essien

September 7, 2010
Matter of McClain-Sewer

September 14, 2010
Matter of Chiofalo
Matter of Jakabovics

September 21, 2010
Matter of Pomerantz

September 23, 2010
Matter of Snyder

September 28, 2010
Matter of Dilmahani
Matter of Jaffe
Matter of Liebowitz
Matter of Zehil

October 7, 2010
Matter of Bautista

October 12, 2010
Matter of Siskin
Matter of Bernstein

October 14, 2010
Matter of Kalina
Matter of Telleysh

October 19, 2010
Matter of Bambury
Matter of Cousins

October 21, 2010
Matter of Francis

October 26, 2010
Matter of Amasike

October 28, 2010
Matter of Salomon

November 9, 2010
Matter of Robinson

November 16, 2010
Matter of Santarlas
Matter of Samuely

November 23, 2010
Matter of Genger

December 9, 2010
Matter of Conrad
Matter of Rudgayzer

December 14, 2010
Matter of Zuber

December 16, 2010
Matter of Posner

January 11, 2011
Matter of Collazo

January 13, 2011
Matter of Golb

January 18, 2011
Matter of Kramer

January 20, 2011
Matter of Shapiro

January 27, 2011
Matter of Dorfman

February 3, 2011
Matter of Diji

February 10, 2011
Matter of Rosenberg

March 8, 2011
Matter of Ravitch

March 24, 2011
Matter of Wang

March 29, 2011
Matter of Silberman

April 5, 2011
Matter of Young

April 21, 2011
Matter of Holubar

May 12, 2011
Matter of Cutillo

May 17, 2011
Matter of Christo

May 24, 2011
Matter of Edelman

Matter of Posner

May 31, 2011
Matter of Kapchan

June 2, 2011
Matter of Armenakis

June 14, 2011
Matter of Brown

June 16, 2011
Matter of Auslander

June 21, 2011
Matter of Weinstein

June 28, 2011
Matter of Jacoby

June 30, 2011
Matter of Kennedy

July 7, 2011
Matter of Bloodsaw

July 14, 2011
Matter of Harrington

July 21, 2011
Matter of Moody
Matter of Amasike

July 28, 2011
Matter of Maruggi
Matter of Andrion

August 4, 2011
Matter of Steier
Matter of Starr
Matter of Sirkin

August 11, 2011
Matter of Malagon
Matter of Bautista
Matter of Barrett

August 18, 2011
Matter of Millstone
Matter of Davis

August 25, 2011
Matter of Engram
Matter of Clemons

September 1, 2011
Matter of Lax
Matter of Molina

September 8, 2011
Matter of Squitieri

September 15, 2011
Matter of Munroe

October 13, 2011
Matter of Cox

October 18, 2011
Matter of Roisman

October 20, 2011
Matter of Dyer

October 25, 2011
Matter of Streit

November 1, 2011
Matter of Jones

November 10, 2011
Matter of Ioannou

December 1, 2011
Matter of Salomon

December 6, 2011
Matter of Stewart

December 8, 2011
Matter of Dear

December 27, 2011
Matter of Leonov

Jan 31, 2012
Matter of Milchma

Feb 9,2012
Matter of Zulandt

Feb 21, 2012
Matter of Margulies

Feb 28, 2012
Matter of Gell
Matter of Schwab

Mar 1, 2012
Matter of Weine

Mar 6, 2012
Matter of Bristol

Mar 13, 2012
Matter of Shearer
Matter of Simels

Mar 20, 2012
Matter of Williams

Mar 22, 2012
Matter of Hager
Matter of Johnson

Mar 27, 2012
Matter of Greenberg
Matter of Lynch

April 5, 2012
Matter of Bloodsaw

April 10, 2012
Matter of Melendez

April 17, 2012
Matter of Reis

April 19, 2012
Matter of Sobolevsky

April 24, 2012
Matter of Solny

April 26, 2012
Matter of DeMell

May 22, 2012
Matter of Sandler

May 24, 2012
Matter of Harris

May 29, 2012
Matter of Colarossi

May 31, 2012
Matter of Caro
Matter of Kilduff

June 5, 2012
Matter of Mundie
Matter of Rosenberg

June 7, 2012
Matter of Gallagher
Matter of Rabinowitz

June 12, 2012
Matter of McGraw

June 14, 2012
Matter of Kulscar

June 19, 2012
Matter of O'Brien

June 28, 2012
Matter of Whitehead

July 3, 2012
Matter of Schneider

July 10, 2012
Matter of Diaz

July 17, 2012
Matter of Mainiero
Matter of Karlick

July 24, 2012
Matter of Millstone
Matter of Kuzmin

July 31, 2012
Matter of Virant

August 7, 2012
Matter of Kenned

September 4, 2012
Matter of Krishnan
Matter of Claffe

October 9, 2012
Matter of Berkman
Matter of Thillet

October 11, 2012
Matter of Schachter
Matter of Yong Wang

October 23, 2012
Matter of Kim

October 25, 2012
Matter of Guttlein
Matter of Karlen

November 8, 2012
Matter of David

November 27, 2012
Matter of Etkin
Matter of Riley

November 29, 2012
Matter of Lizzio

December 4, 2012
Matter of Bruzdziak
Matter of Gurvey

December 6, 2012
Matter of Cohen

December 13, 2012
Matter of Gadsden

December 27, 2012
Matter of Winiarsky

January 3, 2013
Matter of Kluger
Matter of Loglisci

January 10, 2013
Matter of Jackson
Matter of Lam

January 15, 2013
Matter of Weisberg

January 17, 2013
Matter of Samuel

January 22, 2013
Matter of Melendez

January 24, 2013
Matter of Hsu

January 31, 2013
Matter of Koenig

February 5, 2013
Matter of Pritikin

February 7, 2013
Matter of Gibson

February 14, 2013
Matter of Dimick

February 19, 2013
Matter of Block
Matter of Segreti

February 21, 2013
Matter of Reis

February 26, 2013
Matter of Rosenzweig
Matter of Wright

March 26, 2013
Matter of Diamond

March 28, 2013
Matter of Dickstein

April 2, 2013
Matter of Brusch

April 4, 2013
Matter of Serpe

April 11, 2013
Matter of Leonov

April 25, 2013
Matter of Banji

April 30, 2013
Matter of Weisel

May 14, 2013
Matter of Gomelsky
Matter of McGraw
Matter of Muniz
Matter of Philwin
Matter of Rios
Matter of Rosenberg

May 16, 2013
Matter of Karlick

May 21, 2013
Matter of Stern

May 28, 2013
Matter of Meyers

June 4, 2013
Matter of Deitch
Matter of Schoenecker

June 6, 2013
Matter of Knudsen
Matter of Anyikwa

June 11, 2013
Matter of Harris

June 13, 2013
Matter of Mainiero

June 18, 2013
Matter of Sengupta

June 20, 2013
Matter of Kirshenbaum

June 25, 2013
Matter of Katz

June 27, 2013
Matter of Way

July 2, 2013
Matter of Baldinger
Matter of Davis

July 9, 2013
Matter of Freedman

July 16, 2013
Matter of Hollander
Matter of Fengling Liu

July 23, 2013
Matter of Benedict

August 6, 2013
Matter of Rosenberg

August 13, 2013
Matter of Manger

August 27, 2013
Matter of Blank
Matter of Jones

September 3, 2013
Matter of Jacobs

September 10, 2013
Matter of Gilly
Matter of Lin

September 17, 201
Matter of Obten
Matter of Sorote

September 24, 2013
Matter of Connell

September 26, 2013
Matter of Liotti
Matter of Telemaque
Matter of Todorovich

October 1, 2013
Matter of Smith v Williams
Matter of Sondel

October 3, 2013
Matter of Ogihara

October 8, 2013
Matter of Ciccone
Matter of Davey
Matter of Markham

October 22, 2013
Matter of Bruzdziak
Matter of Gadsen

October 24, 2013
Matter of Hession
Matter of Seaborn

October 29, 2013
Matter of Lerner

October 31, 2013
Matter of Filosa
Matter of Linder

November 7, 2013
Matter of Maruggi

November 12, 2013
Matter of Harrington

November 21, 2013
Matter of Taylor

November 26, 2013
Matter of Frank
Matter of Liu
Matter of McLean
Matter of Platt

December 10, 2013
Matter of Getreu
Matter of Kaplan

December 12, 2013
Matter of Ayu
Matter of Rudrakumaran

December 17, 2013
Matter of Guillorn

December 31, 2013
Matter of Adams

Jan. 9, 2014
Matter of Gibson

Jan. 28, 2014
Matter of Riley

back to top

Office Info

61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
(212) 287-1045 FAX

Ernest J. Collazo, Esq.

Chief Counsel
Jorge Dopico, Esq.