In the Matter of Steven Hosseyn Salami, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 3908472)
PER CURIAM — By order dated March 29, 2017, the Supreme Court of New Jersey publicly censured the respondent based upon misconduct that stems from a criminal conviction. On November 17, 2011, the respondent entered a plea of guilty in New Jersey to a downgraded offense of simple assault, a disorderly persons offense. The respondent was sentenced to a 30-day term of imprisonment, which was suspended upon the condition that *2he complete anger management counseling. In addition, the respondent was ordered to pay a $500 fine and other costs. The respondent failed to notify this Court of his conviction, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(c).The New Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingOn December 23, 2015, the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (hereinafter the OAE) filed a motion with the Supreme Court of New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board (hereinafter the DRB) for final discipline based upon the respondent’s criminal conviction. In a decision dated September 20, 2016, the DRB found that the respondent’s plea of guilty to the disorderly persons offense of simple assault constituted a violation of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct rule 8.4(b), which provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. In determining an appropriate sanction, the DRB considered the “gravity of the attack” on the respondent’s victim as established by color photographs of the pictures of the bruising on the victim’s back, wrist, arm, and leg, which were submitted to the Judge prior to sentencing, without objection. Additionally, the DRB noted that the Judge at sentencing remarked that “he had ‘looked at the obviously horrendous situation as it relates to the beating, essentially, that… the victim took.’” In mitigation, the DRB gave great weight to the passage of five years between the incident, which occurred on January 26, 2011, and the motion for final discipline filed by the OAE on December 23, 2015, as well as the four years since the respondent’s plea of guilty on November 17, 2011, that he promptly self-reported his conviction to the New Jersey authorities, his lack of prior ethics or criminal history, his successful completion of anger management treatment, and that he had not engaged in any additional acts of domestic violence. Based upon the foregoing, by a vote of 4 to 3, the DRB recommended a public censure. By order dated March 29, 2017, with two Justices dissenting, the Supreme Court of New Jersey confirmed the DRB’s findings and censured the respondent for his misconduct (see Matter of Salami, 228 NJ 277).The New York ProceedingBy order to show cause dated June 1, 2017, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why discipline should or should not be imposed upon him in this State pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, based on the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed upon him by the *3order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated March 29, 2017. In response, the Court received an affirmation from the respondent’s counsel dated June 29, 2017, and an affidavit from the respondent, sworn to on June 28, 2017, in which, as permitted by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b), the respondent requested the Court to consider in mitigation, inter alia, the aberrational nature of his misconduct, which occurred more than six years ago, his successful completion of anger management treatment, the death of his father, and his current role as the main caregiver for his mother. In view thereof, the respondent and his counsel request the Court to refer the matter back to the Grievance Committee for private disposition or, in the alternative, limit any public discipline imposed to a censure.In considering this matter, we note that the offense of “simple assault” in New Jersey is essentially similar to the New York class A misdemeanor of assault in the third degree, under Penal Law §120.00(2), for which this Court has previously imposed discipline. We also note that the respondent promptly notified the New Jersey authorities of his conviction, which was a factor considered in mitigation in the New Jersey proceeding. However, the respondent failed to notify this Court of his conviction in 2011, as required by Judiciary Law §90(4)(c), which we find is an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate measure of discipline.Based upon the misconduct underlying the order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated March 29, 2017, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted. Notwithstanding the respondent’s request to limit any public discipline imposed to a censure, we conclude that the nature of his criminal conduct warrants his suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months (see Matter of Falco, 150 AD3d 186). All concur.ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
