In re Barry
| Decision Date | 21 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | D-143-18 |
| Citation | 166 A.D.3d 1373,86 N.Y.S.3d 812 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF Peter Hughes BARRY, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 4260097) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Anna E. Remet of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2004 and currently maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County. Based upon a complaint received in March 2017, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) commenced an investigation concerning respondent's alleged misconduct in the context of his representation of a client in a real estate matter. Pursuant to its investigation, AGC sent two notices of complaint to respondent in May 2017 directing him to provide responses to the allegations in the complaints. Based upon his deficient responses, AGC sent respondent a demand to clarify his responses and provide further information. Respondent provided no response, prompting AGC to send a second demand for clarification along with a demand for a response to additional allegations made by one of the complainants. Respondent again failed to respond. Accordingly, AGC provided respondent with a notice to appear for an examination under oath and to produce certain documents related to its investigation (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [b][2] ). Despite confirmation that said notice was delivered to respondent's business address on file with the Office of Court Administration and was signed for at that office, respondent failed to respond and later failed to appear at the examination.
AGC now accordingly moves to suspend respondent during the pendency of its investigation on the basis that he "has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest" (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a] ). "Such conduct may be established by, among other things, proof that the respondent has defaulted in responding to a notice to appear for formal interview, examination or pursuant to subpoena, or has otherwise failed to comply with a lawful demand of an attorney grievance committee in the course of its investigation" ( Matter of DiStefano, 154 A.D.3d 1055, 1056–1057, 61 N.Y.S.3d 514 [2017] [citations omitted]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a][1], [3] ).
To date, respondent has failed to respond to AGC's motion and, thus, the aforementioned facts establishing respondent's lack of cooperation with the investigation are uncontroverted (see Matter of Channing, 163 A.D.3d 1259, 1260, 77 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2018] ). Accordingly, we find that respondent has engaged in conduct that poses an immediate threat to the public interest and, therefore, grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately ( Matter of Humphrey,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Barry
- In re Barry, PM–165–19
- In re Barry
-
In re Cracolici
... ... Accordingly, we find that respondent has engaged in conduct that poses an immediate threat to the public 173 A.D.3d 1432 interest and, therefore, grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately (see Matter of Barry, 166 A.D.3d 1373, 1374, 86 N.Y.S.3d 812 [2018] ). In connection with this order, we remind respondent of his affirmative obligation to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings before AGC within six months of this order of suspension, and note that his failure to do so ... ...