A state appeals court that had already suspended a Nassau County attorney from practicing law for misconduct including misappropriating client settlement funds and failure to cooperate with grievance committee investigations on Wednesday disbarred the attorney for similar conduct—involving yet another client—lodged as a separate matter.

The Appellate Division, Second Department disbarred longtime attorney Arnab Bhukta, who it appears has practiced solo, including in the areas of personal injury and employment law, according to the appeals court's decision and online lawyer listings.

In all, it appears that Bhukta acted unethically—in various ways—with at least three clients, according to two separate Second Department opinions.

In 2017, the appeals court had suspended Bhukta for three years pursuant to 12 charges of professional misconduct that were unrelated to the seven charges involved in Wednesday's disbarment.

The previous 12 charges included misappropriating a client's settlement funds, misrepresenting to that client the settlement's status, failing to cooperate with grievance committee investigations into various misconduct charges, and failing to communicate with a separate client about her and her husband's personal injury case in which statute of limitations period eventually ran out.

The seven charges that now have led to disbarment included misappropriating settlement funds, failure to deliver the funds, misrepresenting the funds' status and failure to cooperate with a grievance committee investigation.

Bhukta, who it appears has represented himself through at least some of the disciplinary matters, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Nor could Catherine Sheridan, an attorney in Hauppauge, New York, who is listed in the opinion as representing the state's Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District.

On Wednesday, the appellate court—using four of the same five panel justices as sat on 2017 panel—immediately disbarred Bhukta, writing in a fairly succinct opinion that he must “desist and refrain” from “holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.”

A top or introductory section of the opinion noted that the court in 2016 had immediately suspended Bhukta, and then in 2017 it both confirmed a special referee's report sustaining 12 misconduct charges against him and suspended him from practicing law for three years with credit for time elapsed since the immediate suspension.

In the main text of Wednesday's decision, Justices Alan Scheinkman, William Mastro, Reinaldo Rivera, Mark Dillon and John Leventhal next explained that in 2018—in a separate proceeding—the Tenth Judicial District grievance committee served Bhukta with a petition setting out seven unrelated charges.

Specifically, those charges included misappropriating settlement funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary; failing to deliver settlement funds to the client; misrepresenting the settlement's status by saying he hadn't received the funds; and failing to cooperate with the grievance committee in its investigation of the client's complaint.

The panel then pointed out that a 2018-served notice regarding charges had directed Bhukta to answer the petition within 20 days—but, as of Wednesday, he hadn't.

In turn, the grievance committee moved “to deem the charges against the respondent established, and to impose such discipline upon him as this Court deems appropriate, based upon his default,” the justices wrote.

Then they levied a penalty of disbarment on Bhukta.

In the court's more detailed 2017 suspension decision, that panel explained in part that in 2009, Bhukta had allegedly been retained to represent a personal injury-suit plaintiff on a contingency fee basis and that he later settled the case for $8,000.

But when Bhukta, who was admitted to the bar in 2009, subsequently made disbursements from a settlement escrow account—while allegedly falsely telling the client there was a lien against the money—“he did not have [the client's] authorization to utilize her funds,” the panel wrote.

Regarding another of the 12 charges, the panel wrote that Bhukta “neglected” an automobile accident legal matter “entrusted to him” by a different clients.

Moreover, during an examination of Bhukta under oath in 2015, as he was being investigated, he “admitted that he had represented [the clients] in the matter, and that the statute of limitations had expired in April 2015.”

“He further admitted that he failed to advise [them] that the statute of limitations had expired,” the panel wrote in 2017, before later adding that the Bhukta “never advised [the clients] that the statute of limitations would be expiring or what, if any, legal options were available to them.”