In re DeMell

• Decision Date: 26 April 2012
• Citation: 944 N.Y.S.2d 25,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03288,96 A.D.3d 94
• Parties: In the Matter of Harry A. DeMELL, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Harry A. DeMell, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 94
944 N.Y.S.2d 25
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03288

In the Matter of Harry A. DeMELL, an attorney and counselor-at-law:
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
Harry A. DeMell, Respondent.

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

April 26, 2012.

Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel), for petitioner.

[944 N.Y.S.2d 26]

Roger B. Adler, for respondent.

LUIS A. GONZALEZ, Presiding Justice, PETER TOM, JAMES M. CATTERSON, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, NELSON S. ROMÁN, Justices.

PER CURIAM.

[96 A.D.3d 95]Respondent Harry A. DeMell was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department in 1978. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

In December 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals publically reprimanded respondent for failure to file a timely response, or timely request an extension of time to respond, to a motion to dismiss, resulting in prejudice to his client; failure to file a pre-argument statement in an administrative matter, resulting in its dismissal; and failure to timely submit papers, or timely request an extension of time, in several other cases (589 F.3d 569 [2d Cir.2009] ). The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, imposing reciprocal discipline, namely, a public censure or, in the alternative, such discipline as this Court deems appropriate. In response, respondent requests that any reciprocal discipline imposed be limited to a private reprimand.

Respondent does not assert any of the defenses to reciprocal discipline enumerated at 22 NYCRR 603.3(c), to wit: lack of notice and opportunity to be heard; infirmity of proof; or the absence of any comparable New York provision warranting discipline for the misconduct identified by the foreign jurisdiction. Rather, respondent, through counsel, has submitted an affirmation in which he “urge[s] this Court to impose professional discipline consistent with Rule 603.9 (private admonition) or remand the matter to the D.D.C. for such discipline to avoid the untoward result that a public admonition may be mis-perceived as an instance of repeated conduct.” In his own affirmation, respondent argues that imposing further discipline would be “excessive” and requests “forbearance and ... a private reprimand at...