Matter of Abrahams, 2001-08705.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation5 A.D.3d 21,2003 NY Slip Op 19997,770 N.Y.S.2d 369
Docket Number2001-08705.
Decision Date29 December 2003
PartiesIn the Matter of SOLOMON ABRAHAMS, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Petitioner.
5 A.D.3d 21
770 N.Y.S.2d 369
2003 NY Slip Op 19997
In the Matter of SOLOMON ABRAHAMS, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Petitioner.
2001-08705.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
December 29, 2003.

[5 A.D.3d 22]

Gary L. Casella, White Plains (Matthew Renert of counsel), for petitioner.

Solomon Abrahams, White Plains, respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.


The respondent was served with a petition and a supplemental petition containing 19 charges of professional misconduct. Charges 9 and 13 were subsequently amended. In his answer and amended answer to the petition, the respondent generally denied that he was guilty of misconduct. In his supplemental answer, he admitted all of the factual allegations contained in Charges 15 through 19 and asserted several affirmative defenses. At the hearing, the petitioner's case consisted entirely of documentary evidence, to wit, 28 exhibits. The respondent testified on his own behalf and produced 10 exhibits, which were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Special Referee sustained all of the charges. The petitioner now moves to disaffirm the report of the Special Referee insofar as it sustains Charge 15 and to confirm the report insofar as it sustains the remaining charges. The respondent cross moves to disaffirm the report of the Special Referee in its entirety or to refer the matter to a new Special Referee.

Charge 1 alleges that the respondent disregarded the ruling of a tribunal, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-106 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.37 [a]):

The respondent was the plaintiff's counsel in the case of Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., which was litigated before the Honorable John DiBlasi in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. On March 18, 1999, Justice DiBlasi ordered that the plaintiff respond to certain discovery demands made by the defendant.

5 A.D.3d 23

Notwithstanding Justice DiBlasi's direction, the respondent failed to respond on behalf of his client to the discovery demands. By decision and order dated September 13, 1999, Justice DiBlasi determined that the respondent had refused to comply with his direction and sanctioned him pursuant to subpart 130-1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR subpart 130-1).

Charge 2 alleges that, based on the foregoing factual allegations, the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]), by failing to comply with the direction of a tribunal.

Charge 3 alleges that the respondent disregarded the ruling of a tribunal, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-106 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.37 [a]).

The respondent was the plaintiff's counsel in the case of Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., which was litigated, inter alia, before the Honorable John DiBlasi in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. On March 18, 1999, Justice DiBlasi ordered that the plaintiff appear for a further deposition and that the defendant be permitted to ask all of the questions to which the respondent objected at a prior deposition. Notwithstanding Justice DiBlasi's direction, the respondent advised the defendant that the further deposition of the plaintiff would be subject to limitations. By decision and order dated September 13, 1999, Justice DiBlasi determined that the respondent refused to comply with his direction and, in turn, imposed a sanction against him pursuant to subpart 130-1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR subpart 130-1).

Charge 4 alleges that, based on the foregoing factual allegations, the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]).

Charge 5 alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct that served to harass another party in litigation, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.33 [a] [1]).

The respondent was the plaintiff's counsel in the case of Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., which was litigated before the Honorable John DiBlasi in the Supreme Court, Westchester County. In May 1999, the defendant moved the court due to the plaintiff's lack of compliance with Justice DiBlasi's discovery

5 A.D.3d 24

directions on March 18, 1999. The respondent, inter alia, cross-moved for summary judgment. The cross motion was made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue in that action. Prior thereto, the respondent had moved for summary judgment on behalf of the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court had ruled thereon. By decision and order dated September 13, 1999, Justice DiBlasi determined that the cross motion for summary judgment was frivolous and sanctioned the respondent pursuant to subpart 130-1 of the Rules...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Abrahams v. Appellate Div. Of Supreme Court, No. 05 Civ. 4053(SCR)(GAY).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 7, 2007
    ...Dep't, Dec. 29, 2003). Page 553 On December 29, 2003, Plaintiff was suspended from the practice of law for five years. In re Abrahams, 5 A.D.3d 21, 26, 770 N.Y.S.2d 369 (App. Div.2d Dep't 2003). In sustaining thirteen of nineteen charges that had been brought before the Special Referee, the......
  • In re Gluck, No. 13 MC 651.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • July 15, 2015
    ...before a tribunal (Rule 3.3(f)) that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law (Rule 8.4(h)). See, e.g., Matter of Abrahams, 5 A.D.3d 21, 770 N.Y.S.2d 369 (2d Dep't 2003) (attorney's conduct in failing to respond to discovery demands despite judge's order to do so constituted disreg......
2 cases
  • Abrahams v. Appellate Div. Of Supreme Court, No. 05 Civ. 4053(SCR)(GAY).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 7, 2007
    ...Dep't, Dec. 29, 2003). Page 553 On December 29, 2003, Plaintiff was suspended from the practice of law for five years. In re Abrahams, 5 A.D.3d 21, 26, 770 N.Y.S.2d 369 (App. Div.2d Dep't 2003). In sustaining thirteen of nineteen charges that had been brought before the Special Referee, the......
  • In re Gluck, No. 13 MC 651.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • July 15, 2015
    ...before a tribunal (Rule 3.3(f)) that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law (Rule 8.4(h)). See, e.g., Matter of Abrahams, 5 A.D.3d 21, 770 N.Y.S.2d 369 (2d Dep't 2003) (attorney's conduct in failing to respond to discovery demands despite judge's order to do so constituted disreg......

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