Matter of Taylor

Full title: In the Matter of NEIL G. TAYLOR, an Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 10, 2003

301 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

753 N.Y.S.2d 392

Opinion

January 10, 2003.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1986. He maintains an office for the practice of law in Florida, where he is also admitted to practice.

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards (Steven D. Zayas of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.

Peter V. Coffey, Schenectady, for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Per Curiam.

In July 2002, respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida of the misdemeanor offense of filing a false document with the Internal Revenue Service in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7207. He was sentenced to one year's probation. He continues to practice law in Florida, although an ethics grievance arising from the underlying circumstances of his conviction is pending against him in that state.

Based upon respondent's conviction of a serious crime (see e.g. Matter of Karp, 122 A.D.2d 964), petitioner moves for an order suspending him from the practice of law until such time as a final disciplinary order is made (see Judiciary Law § 90 [f] [g]). Respondent opposes petitioner's motion and requests that the interim suspension be set aside. He also requests that he be granted a hearing (see Judiciary Law § 90 [h]) or, alternatively, that the matter be deferred pending the outcome of the Florida ethics grievance.

Given the mitigating circumstances set forth by respondent, we deny petitioner's motion and set aside the interim suspension (see Judiciary Law § 90 [f], [g]). We further direct petitioner, within 30 days after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding pending against respondent in Florida, to submit a proposed order requiring respondent to show cause why a final disciplinary order should not be made.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that petitioner shall submit, within 30 days after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding pending against respondent in Florida, a proposed order requiring respondent to show cause why a final order of suspension, censure or removal from office should not be made pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4) (g).