Matter of Veski, M-1053.

• Decision Date: 17 May 2007
• Docket Number: M-1053.
• Citation: 42 A.D.3d 122,2007 NY Slip Op 04239,837 N.Y.S.2d 605
• Parties: In the Matter of ERIK VESKI, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

42 A.D.3d 122

837 N.Y.S.2d 605

2007 NY Slip Op 04239

In the Matter of ERIK VESKI, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.

M-1053.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

May 17, 2007.

Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Andral N. Bratton of counsel), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Erik Veski was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on July 28, 1982. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

By order entered May 26, 2004, this Court granted the Disciplinary Committee's petition for collateral estoppel, finding respondent guilty of professional misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and conduct which adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer, and referred the matter back to the Committee solely to consider evidence in mitigation or aggravation, and to recommend an appropriate sanction. The collateral estoppel petition was based on a jury verdict and a $427,625.07 judgment against respondent, entered on June 21, 2002, in a civil matter in Supreme Court, Westchester County. Respondent's misconduct involved fraudulent activities culminating in his obtaining real estate loans from clients under false pretenses.

By order entered March 30, 2006, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for three years, effective the date of the order, and also directed respondent to make monetary restitution to his former clients in the amount of $427,625.07 and, where appropriate, to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Matter of Veski, 29 AD3d 250 [2006]).

Nevertheless, just over eight months later, the Committee received a letter from an attorney, Mitchell Weingarden, who alleged that respondent had held himself out to Weingarden's client as counsel for the client's adversary, who was identified as an architect named "Eva." Weingarden attached a December 6, 2006 e-mail from respondent to Weingarden's client, Rich Sauerhaft, which was a follow-up to a conversation during which respondent represented himself to Mr. Sauerhaft to be an attorney, and respondent was also described as an attorney by "Eva." Although respondent does not identify himself as an attorney in that e-mail or use the designation "Esq.," the tone and content of the three-page e-mail is legal in nature. In his e-mail, respondent advised that, among other things, if Sauerhaft tried to hire another architect to take over Eva's working drawings, a federal court action and statutory damages could result for willful infringement, and he cites to the applicable federal statute. Respondent ended the e-mail by telling Sauerhaft "what will be done"; he listed the amount of money still owed Eva; and he stated that "[w]e will hold off on contacting the building department for 24 hours, or until 3:00 p.m. Thursday, to await your expected agreement to the foregoing terms. Should this matter not be finalized immediately, any possibility of a final resolution will undoubtedly involve a prolonged process."

The day after Sauerhaft forwarded this e-mail to Weingarden, Weingarden sent a letter to respondent referring to the e-mail; noting that he was unable to locate a listing for res...