Opinion
September 18, 2000.
MOTION by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (1) to vacate a decision and order of this court dated May 27, 1999, which suspended the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4)(d) and (f) upon his conviction of a serious crime, authorized the institution and prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding against him, and referred the matter to the Honorable Stanley Harwood, as Special Referee, to hear and report, and (2) to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) upon his conviction of a felony. The respondent was admitted to the practice of law at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 17, 1979, under the name Peter Lawrence Kramer.
Grace D. Moran, Syosset, N.Y., for petitioner.
Robert J. Avallone, Melville, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, DAVID S. RITTER, FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, JJ.
OPINION ORDER
On June 30, 1998, the respondent was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to 27 months imprisonment upon his conviction, after trial, of two counts of racketeering conspiracy, a Federal felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The respondent's conviction, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 30, 2000 ( see, U.S. v. Zicherrello, 208 F.3d 72), arose out of a scheme in which his law firm paid more than $400,000 in cash bribes to officials of the Transit Police Benevolent Association in exchange for more than $2 million in legal and consulting fees.
Penal Law § 180.15 provides "A person is guilty of bribing a lab official when, with intent to influence a labor official in respect to any of his acts, decision duties as such labor official, he confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon him. Bribing a labor official is a class D ".
In view of the decision of the Second Circuit, the respondent is guilty of bribing a labor official. Therefore, upon his conviction, the respondent ceased be an attorney and counselor-at-law (see, Judiciary Law § 90 [a]).
Accordingly, the petitioner's motion is granted to the extent that the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorney and counselors-at-law, effective immediately, and the motion is otherwise denied.
ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that the respondent is disbarred, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Peter Kramer, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorney and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent shall continue to comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys ( see, 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, Peter Kramer is commanded to continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.