Second Department, October 1, 2025

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

On January 31, 2025, the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts served the respondent, through his counsel, with a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated January 29, 2025. The respondent's counsel consented to accept service via email on his client's behalf of the notice of petition and petition. Proof of service was duly filed with this Court.

The petition contains 14 charges of professional misconduct, alleging that the respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) related to his escrow account. The petition alleges that the respondent misappropriated funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary in multiple client matters (charges 1 to 5), commingled personal funds with fiduciary funds (charge 6), misused his escrow account to conduct personal business (charge 7), made withdrawals from his escrow account to unnamed payees (charge 8), allowed a non-attorney to be a signatory on his escrow account (charge 9), failed to keep the required bookkeeping records for his escrow account (charge 10), failed to regularly reconcile his escrow account (charge 11), failed to properly title his escrow account, checks, and deposit slips (charge 12), engaged in the practice of law under a misleading name (charge 13), and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer (charges 7, 11 and 14), in violation of rules 1.15 (a), (b) (2); (d), (e); 7.5 (b) (1) (iii); and 8.4 (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The notice of petition directed the respondent to file his answer to the petition within 20 days after service upon him of {**247 AD3d 39}the petition. To date, the respondent has neither served nor filed an answer to the petition, as directed.

The Grievance Committee now moves to deem the charges against the respondent established based upon his default and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems appropriate. Although the motion papers were duly served upon the respondent through his [*2]counsel by mail and email on March 20, 2025, he has neither opposed the motion nor interposed any response thereto.

Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to deem the charges against the respondent established based upon his default is granted, the charges in the petition dated January 29, 2025, are deemed established, and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

LaSalle, P.J., Dillon, Duffy, Barros and Mc Cormack, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the Grievance Committee's motion to deem the charges in the verified petition dated January 29, 2025, established is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Pasquale R. Calcagno, is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Pasquale R. Calcagno, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, Pasquale R. Calcagno, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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 if the respondent, Pasquale R. Calcagno, 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 1240.15 (f).