Matter of Rosenblatt
2018 NY Slip Op 01278 [159 AD3d 82]
January 10, 2017
Per Curiam.
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, April 11, 2018


[*1]
In the Matter of Michael J. Rosenblatt (Admitted as Michael Jon Rosenblatt), an Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department, January 10, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York City (Raymond J. Vallejo of counsel), for petitioner.

Harlan Greenberg for respondent.

{**159 AD3d at 82} OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.

Respondent Michael J. Rosenblatt was admitted to the{**159 AD3d at 83} practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on December 14, 1988, under the name Michael Jon Rosenblatt. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained his principal [*2]place of business within the First Judicial Department.[FN*]

By notice of petition dated June 7, 2016, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b).

Notably, respondent entered into a plea and cooperation agreement that was filed under seal in a criminal case being prosecuted by the New York County District Attorney's Office before Hon. Michael Obus. On March 25, 2016, respondent pleaded guilty in Supreme Court, New York County, to grand larceny in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.40, a class C felony.

Respondent's conviction of a New York felony constitutes grounds for his automatic disbarment pursuant to section 90 (4) (a) of the Judiciary Law and his name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to section 90 (4) (b) (see Matter of Block, 105 AD3d 70 [1st Dept 2013]). For purposes of automatic disbarment, conviction occurs at the time of the plea or verdict; therefore, the fact that respondent has not yet been sentenced does not preclude his name from being stricken from the rolls (see Matter of Sheinbaum, 47 AD3d 49 [1st Dept 2007]).

Accordingly, the Committee's petition pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) should be granted, and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York effective nunc pro tunc to March 25, 2016.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ., concur.

Motion granted and respondent disbarred, effective nunc pro tunc to March 25, 2016, and until further order of this Court.

Motion to unseal disbarment order and decision granted. No opinion. All concur.



Footnotes


Footnote *:Respondent has a disciplinary history: in 1999, this Court suspended him for six months for threatening a business associate with physical violence when the latter defaulted in paying money owed in relation to respondent's restaurant, and for lying to the District Attorney's office and making false statements under oath to the DDC (253 AD2d 106 [1st Dept 1999]); in 2006, the Second Department censured respondent based upon his "serious crime" conviction of soliciting business on behalf of an attorney, an unclassified misdemeanor (26 AD3d 49 [2d Dept 2006]).