Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Martir (In re Martir), M–6909

Citation180 A.D.3d 67,116 N.Y.S.3d 280
Decision Date26 December 2019
Docket NumberM–6909
Parties In the MATTER OF Carlos A. MARTIR, Jr., (admitted as Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr.), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Carlos A. MARTIR, Jr., Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

180 A.D.3d 67
116 N.Y.S.3d 280

In the MATTER OF Carlos A. MARTIR, Jr., (admitted as Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr.), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
v.
Carlos A. MARTIR, Jr., Respondent.

M–6909

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

December 26, 2019


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

Deborah A. Scalise, Esq., for respondent.

Anil C. Singh, Justices.

PER CURIAM

116 N.Y.S.3d 281
180 A.D.3d 68

Respondent Carlos A. Martir, Jr., was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 7, 1980, under the name Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

By order dated March 3, 2016, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania publicly reprimanded respondent for his repeated failure to appear before the court in a criminal matter in accordance with its scheduling orders. Respondent was found in contempt and fined $1,500.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) of the First Department now seeks an order pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline on the basis of the discipline imposed by the Disciplinary Review Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Committee seeks the imposition of a public censure. Respondent does not oppose the imposition of reciprocal discipline, but requests, in the alternative, private discipline in the manner of an admonition.

Respondent does not dispute that he failed to appear in a Pennsylvania criminal proceeding for jury selection on July 1, 2014, which resulted in the court's order directing him to appear on July 23, 2014 for a contempt hearing, at which he also failed to appear. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Ziankovich (In re Ziankovich)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • November 2, 2020
    ...for which the attorney was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in this state ( Matter of Martir, 180 A.D.3d 67, 116 N.Y.S.3d 280 [1st Dept. 2019] ).Respondent argues that the defenses under 1240.13(b)(1) and (3) apply herein, and claims, among other things......
  • Eusebio C.T. v. Children's Vill. (In re Messiah C.T.), 11062
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 20, 2020
    ...it were to credit the father's testimony, his attempts to communicate with the child were too sporadic and insubstantial to defeat the 116 N.Y.S.3d 280 finding of abandonment (see e.g. Matter of Christie A.M., 57 A.D.3d 225, 225–226, 869 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept. 2008] ).The father's argument ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT