Elliott, Matter of
| Decision Date | 17 July 1986 |
| Citation | 118 A.D.2d 293,504 N.Y.S.2d 99 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Bruce Marc ELLIOTT, a suspended attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Bruce Marc Elliott, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Patricia Smillie-Scavelli, of counsel (Michael A. Gentile, New York City, atty.), for petitioner.
No appearance on behalf of respondent.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and KUPFERMAN, ROSS, CARRO and MILONAS, JJ.
Respondent Bruce Mark Elliott was admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor-at-law in the State of New York on February 21, 1973, at a term of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. At all times relevant, he has maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Judicial Department. On November 5, 1984, he was convicted of the federal offense of devising and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and obtain money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342. By petition returnable January 23, 1985, the Disciplinary Committee moved for an order determining that the crime of which respondent was convicted is a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) and directing that respondent show cause pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(g) why a final order of censure, suspension or removal from office should not occur. Respondent cross-moved for an order staying the suspension. By order entered February 19, 1985, 108 A.D.2d 646, 485 N.Y.S.2d 714, the cross-petition was denied and respondent was suspended from the practice of law until further order of this court and directed to show cause why a final order of suspension, censure or removal from office should not be entered.
Pursuant to the provisions of 22 NYCRR § 603.13 respondent filed with this court an affidavit dated March 29, 1985, in which he swore compliance with the order of suspension. Subsequently, by order entered May 30, 1985, this court denied respondent's motion for an order directing that this matter be set down for a hearing before a referee and that in the interim respondent not be suspended. By order entered October 3, 1985, 114 A.D.2d 305, 493 N.Y.S.2d 756, we granted respondent's reargument motion for a hearing to the extent of modifying the order entered May 30, 1985, and referring the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for a hearing pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(h).
The Disciplinary Committee proceeded to assemble information for the hearing concerning respondent's conviction. Becau of certain delays in gathering the information and arranging for the appearance of a government protected witness, a hearing date was not scheduled until January 27, 1986. The hearing was later adjourned with respondent's consent to February 24, 1986. Respondent's counsel then requested an adjournment to April 14, 1986, because respondent was considering submitting his resignation. No resignation was ever submitted.
In February of 1986, prior to the adjourned hearing date, the Disciplinary Committee acquired information that respondent had continued to practice law despite the suspension order and began an investigation. In the two weeks prior to the scheduled April 14th hearing, the Disciplinary Committee obtained a substantial amount of evidence that respondent had been practicing law in contravention of this court's suspension.
On letterhead indicating that he was an attorney at law with an office in New York City, respondent, on February 27, 1985, wrote to opposing counsel on a pending divorce proceeding in which respondent was still representing the husband. Correspondence dated March 20, 1985, indicated that respondent was the attorney for Frank's West 15th Street on a matter involving a lease. The attorney for the other party in this matter, David Halper, Esq., testified before the Disciplinary Committee that in April of 1985 respondent prepared the lease between Frank's West 15th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Barry
-
In re Barry
...2021 NY Slip Op 05916 In the Matter of Peter Hughes Barry, a Suspended Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 4260097.) No. PM-144-21Supreme Court of New York, Third DepartmentOctober 28, ... Judiciary Law § 468-a [Campito], 179 A.D.3d at ... 1347; Matter of Elliott, 118 A.D.2d 293, 295 ... [1986]). Thus, regardless of respondent's beliefs ... regarding the propriety of his role and involvement in ... ...
-
Olitt, Matter of
...A.D.2d 386, 527 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1st Dept.1988); Matter of Brill, 131 A.D.2d 3, 519 N.Y.S.2d 816 (1st Dept.1987); Matter of Elliott, 118 A.D.2d 293, 504 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1st Dept.1986); Matter of Kaufman, 105 A.D.2d 145, 483 N.Y.S.2d 291 (1st Dept.1985). In this case, there is no reason to deviate......
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Herzberg (In re Herzberg)
...215, 15 N.Y.S.3d 309 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Veski, 42 A.D.3d 122, 837 N.Y.S.2d 605 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Matter of Elliott, 118 A.D.2d 293, 504 N.Y.S.2d 99 [1st Dept. 1986] ). Additionally, despite this Court's suspension order, which directed respondent to "desist and refrain from the p......