Opinion
M–4914
10-31-2017
In the MATTER OF Mark A. HIDALGO, (admitted as Mark Anthony Hidalgo), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Mark A. Hidalgo, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4643235), Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Remi E. Shea, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Remi E. Shea, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
Rolando T. Acosta, Presiding Justice, John W. Sweeny, Jr., Karla Moskowitz, Barbara R. Kapnick, Marcy L. Kahn, Justices.
PER CURIAMRespondent Mark A. Hidalgo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on October 22, 2008, under the name Mark Anthony Hidalgo. Respondent last maintained a registered address within the First Judicial Department.
By order entered March 15, 2017, respondent was suspended from the practice of law pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(3) and (5) based upon his failure to cooperate with the Attorney Grievance Committee's (Committee) investigation into two disciplinary complaints filed against him and uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct which immediately threatened the public interest, namely, that he converted and/or misappropriated escrow funds ( 149 A.D.3d 58, 49 N.Y.S.3d 131 [1st Dept. 2017] ).
The Committee seeks an order disbarring respondent on the ground that he was suspended under 22 NYCRR 1240(a)(3) and (5) and has "failed to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension" ( 22 NYCRR 1240.9 [b] ).
More than six months have elapsed since this Court's March 15, 2017 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded to, nor appeared for, further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings. In light of the above, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York ( Matter of Kelly, 155 A.D.3d 25, 62 N.Y.S.3d 809 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Shedrinsky, 152 A.D.3d 132, 54 N.Y.S.3d 861 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Jones, 148 A.D.3d 113, 46 N.Y.S.3d 791 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Odikpo, 147 A.D.3d 48, 42 N.Y.S.3d 806 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
All concur.