Summary
suspending Borzouye from the practice of law in New York State
Summary of this case from Friedman v. Self Help Cmty. Servs., Inc.Opinion
M–5379
01-02-2018
In the MATTER OF Richard D. BORZOUYE, (admitted as Richard Darius Borzouye, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Richard D. Borzouye, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4191490) Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Jun H. Lee, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Jun H. Lee, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
David Friedman, Justice Presiding, John W. Sweeny, Jr., Dianne T. Renwick, Richard T. Andrias, Jeffery K. Oing, Justices.
IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD D. BORZOUYE, AN ATTORNEY
Per Curiam
Respondent Richard Darius Borzouye was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 25, 2004. At certain times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained a law office within the First Judicial Department.
In May 2014, the Attorney Grievance Committee moved for respondent's immediate suspension from the practice of law, based upon his failure to cooperate with the Committee's investigation into three complaints of professional misconduct. Respondent defaulted on this motion. Accordingly, by order entered October 23, 2014, this Court granted the Committee's motion and immediately suspended respondent from the practice of law ( 131 A.D.3d 339, 15 N.Y.S.3d 890 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
In April 2015, respondent asked this Court to vacate his default upon the Committee's interim suspension motion and to reinstate him to the practice of law. In support of this motion respondent submitted answers to the complaints and cited to certain personal problems. The Committee did not oppose and this Court granted respondent's motion and immediately reinstated him to the practice of law. In addition, we directed the Committee to investigate and resolve all pending disciplinary matters and directed respondent to continue his participation in certain lawyers' assistance programs.
In December 2016, the Committee opened a fourth investigation based upon a complaint alleging that respondent had neglected a case in Family Court. On December 12, 2016, the Committee forwarded a copy of this complaint to respondent's attorney and requested an answer within 20 days, but respondent did not answer. On March 8, 2017, the Committee made a second written request, but there was still no answer from respondent.
While the Committee's investigation was pending in the Family Court matter, on February 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order sanctioning respondent for engaging in "extreme" and essentially frivolous conduct relating to one of the three complaints which led to respondent's original suspension in October 2014.
On March 8, 2017 the Committee forwarded to respondent a copy of the federal court's order sanctioning him, and asked him for an explanation. Respondent did not answer. On May 1, 2017, and again on May 18, 2017 the Committee sent additional letters to respondent, directing him to comply with the Committee's March 8 request. Respondent did not comply.
On July 14, 2017, an investigator for the Committee served respondent with a judicial subpoena directing him to appear at the Committee's office on July 27, 2017, for an examination under oath. When respondent failed to appear on July 27, the Committee sent him a letter advising him of his default. In addition, the Committee directed respondent to appear on August 3, 2017, for an examination under oath and advised him that if he did not appear, the Committee would seek his interim suspension. Respondent failed to appear on August 3.
The Committee now seeks an order pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Discipline Matters ( 22 NYCRR) 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court. The Committee's motion is based upon respondent's failure to appear for an examination under oath pursuant to a subpoena from this Court and his failure to comply with the Committee's lawful demands. In addition, this motion relies on the same three complaints that led to this Court's October 2014 order suspending respondent from the practice of law, as well as the complaint filed in December 2016 relating to neglect of the Family Court matter. Notwithstanding proper service, respondent has not submitted a response.
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a), this Court may suspend an attorney from the practice of law on an interim basis during the pendency of an investigation or proceeding on application or motion of a Committee, following service upon respondent and upon a finding by the Court that respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening to the public interest. Such a finding may be based upon "respondent's default in responding to a petition, notice to appear for a formal interview, examination or pursuant to a subpoena under these Rules" ( 22 NYCRR 1240.9 [a][1] ) or upon "respondent's failure to comply with a lawful demand of the Court or a Committee in an investigation or proceeding under these Rules" ( 22 NYCRR 1240.9 [a][3] ).
Respondent has repeatedly failed to provide the Committee with an explanation of the circumstances that resulted in the sanction imposed on him by the federal court, failed to answer the neglect complaint filed against him in December 2016 and failed to appear for an examination under oath pursuant to a judicial subpoena. These actions as well as his default in responding to the instant motion, demonstrate respondent's disregard for his duties as an attorney as well as professional misconduct threatening the public interest and therefore warrant respondent's immediate suspension (see Matter of Thomas, 155 A.D.3d 61, 62 N.Y.S.3d 355 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Raum, 141 A.D.3d 198, 34 N.Y.S.3d 437 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Connolly, 138 A.D.3d 1, 24 N.Y.S.3d 620 [1st Dept. 2016] ; Matter of Cumberbatch, 123 A.D.3d 152, 994 N.Y.S.2d 859 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Anyikwa, 109 A.D.3d 76, 968 N.Y.S.2d 428 [1st Dept. 2013] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, and until further order of this court.
All Concur.