MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Second Department Disbars Two Long Island Attorneys

Second Department Disbars Two Long Island Attorneys
The New York Law Journal by Brendan Pierson  -  January 4, 2012

Two Long Island attorneys were banned from practicing law by the Appellate Division, Second Department last week. Frederic A. Powell pleaded guilty to grand larceny, criminal possession of a forged instrument and attempted bribery on March 29, 2011, all felonies. Mr. Powell admitted to forging a name on a mortgage; trying to bribe a Hempstead, N.Y. town employee with $250 to expedite a Freedom of Information Act request for the location of a property; and stealing more than $50,000. He accomplished his theft by acting as a middle man for loans and keeping loan payments for himself instead of forwarding them to lenders, according to charges filed against him by Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen M. Rice. Mr. Powell's felony plea resulted in automatic disbarment by a Second Department panel consisting of Justices William F. Mastro, Reinaldo E. Rivera, Peter B. Skelos, Mark C. Dillon and Sheri S. Roman. The Second Department also disbarred Edward J. Martz, who was accused of failing to preserve client funds, using such funds for his own purposes, misleading a client into believing that he still had her funds in a bank account when he did not, failing to keep records and failing to cooperate with the grievance committee's investigation.  Mr. Martz was suspended by the Second Department in January and served with the petition against him. He failed to respond. In light of that failure, a Second Department panel consisting of Justices Mastro, Rivera, Skelos, Dillon and Randall T. Eng disbarred him.

Matter of Powell
2011 NY Slip Op 09651  -  Decided on December 27, 2011  -  2009-04002
Appellate Division, Second Department  -  Per Curiam.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 27, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PETER B. SKELOS
MARK C. DILLON
SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

[*1]In the Matter of Frederic A. Powell, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Frederic A. Powell, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 1935741) Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b), based upon his felony convictions. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 11, 1984.  Robert A. Green, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Daniel M. Mitola of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION & ORDER  -  PER CURIAM.  On March 29, 2011, in the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCormack, J.), the respondent entered a plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony in violation of New York Penal Law § 155.40; criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a class D felony in violation of New York Penal Law § 170.25; and attempted bribery in the third degree, a class E felony in violation of New York Penal Law § 200.00.  The respondent admitted that he stole property with a value exceeding $50,000; that, with intent to defraud and deceive, he placed a person's name on a mortgage without her knowledge or consent, thereby possessing a forged instrument; and that he attempted to confer a benefit upon a public servant to influence her actions, to wit, that he attempted to give $200 to an employee of the Town of Hempstead in exchange for her expediting a request under the Freedom of Information Law.The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) moves to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) based upon his felony convictions. The respondent has neither opposed the Grievance Committee's motion nor submitted any papers in response.  By virtue of his felony convictions, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), and was automatically disbarred on March 29, 2011. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to strike the respondent's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law is granted, effective March 29, 2011, and the respondent's name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law based upon his disbarment. [*2] MASTRO, A.P.J., RIVERA, SKELOS, DILLON and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), the respondent, Frederic A. Powell, is disbarred, effective March 29, 2011, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b); and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent, Frederic A. Powell, shall 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, the respondent, Frederic A. Powell, is commanded to desist and refrain from (l) 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; and its is further, ORDERED that if the respondent, Frederic A. Powell, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).  ENTER:  Aprilanne Agostino, Clerk of the Court

----------
Matter of Martz
2011 NY Slip Op 09647  -   Decided on December 27, 2011  -  2010-09953
Appellate Division, Second Department  -  Per Curiam.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 27, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PETER B. SKELOS
MARK C. DILLON
RANDALL T. ENG, JJ.

[*1]In the Matter of Edward J. Martz, a suspended attorney. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Edward J. Martz, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2051506) DISCIPLINARY proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on March 31, 1986.  Robert A. Green, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Robert H. Cabble of
counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION & ORDER  -  PER CURIAM. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 25, 2011, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law upon a finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee), substantial admissions made under oath, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct. That decision and order also authorized the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon the allegations set forth in a petition dated August 16, 2010; ordered that the respondent serve an answer to the petition within 20 days; and referred the issues raised to the Honorable Arthur J. Cooperman, as Special Referee to hear and report.  The petition contains 17 charges of professional misconduct against the respondent, including breaching his fiduciary duty by failing to preserve funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law (three counts); misappropriating and/or converting funds entrusted to him in his capacity as attorney, by using them for purposes other than those for which they intended (four counts); engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by misleading a client that he still maintained her funds in his bank account, would be remitting them, and delaying remitting the funds; failing to maintain funds received on behalf of another, incident to his practice of law, in a special bank account; engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to timely or properly cooperate in the investigation by the Grievance Committee; permitting multiple checks or electronic transfers to be dishonored in his attorney trust account due to insufficient funds; failing to maintain required bookkeeping records; and engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer (five counts). [*2]  On March 28, 2011, the respondent was personally served with a copy of the decision and order dated January 25, 2011, with notice of entry; notice of petition; and the petition dated August 16, 2010. More than 20 days have since elapsed without an answer to the petition, as directed, or a request for an adjournment. The Grievance Committee now moves to deem the charges against the respondent established, and to impose such discipline upon him as the Court deems appropriate, based upon his default. No opposition or other response to the Grievance Committee's motion has been received from the respondent to date.  Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, the charges in the verified petition are deemed established and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred on default and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.  MASTRO, A.P.J., RIVERA, SKELOS, DILLON and ENG, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee's motion is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Edward J. Martz, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Edward J. Martz, 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, the respondent, Edward J. Martz, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal, 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; and it is further, ORDERED that if the respondent, Edward J. Martz, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f). ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino, Clerk of the Court

2 comments:

not laughing said...

Maybe these two can take an ethics course taught by former Chief Judge Wachler who himself is a convicted felon, did time in prison, but who got his law license back and YES, teaches legal ethics. Pretty funny.

Anonymous said...

Two tokens sacrifice to make believe the rest are honest.

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2