By Mastro, J.P.; Roman, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ.PEOPLE, etc., res, v. Ramon Santiago, ap — Motion by the appellant pro se for leave to prosecute an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 14, 2017, as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it isORDERED that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant is directed to show cause before this Court why the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground that the order is not appealable as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPL 450.10, 450.15), by filing an affirmation or an affidavit on that issue in the office of the Clerk of this Court on or before June 20, 2018; and it is further,ORDERED that the appellant’s motion is held in abeyance in the interim; and it is further,ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court or her designee is directed to serve a copy of this order to show cause upon the appellant at the appellant’s last known place of residence or, if the appellant is imprisoned, at the institution in which the appellant is confined, upon the attorney who last appeared for the appellant, and upon the District Attorney, by ordinary mail pursuant to CPL 470.60(2).MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Austin, JJ.MATTER of Miriam Lazofsky, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Miriam Lazofsky, res — (Attorney Registration No. 2205862) — Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts to deem established the charges contained in a verified petition dated March 8, 2017, upon the respondent’s default in filing an answer, and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court may deem appropriate. By order to show cause dated November 28, 2017, the respondent and the Grievance Committee were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be entered determining that the respondent is incapacitated from practicing law by reason of mental disability or condition under 22 NYCRR 1240.14(b), and the motion by the Grievance Committee was held in abeyance in the interim. 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 12, 1956.Now, upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the papers filed in support of the motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the motion for an order determining that the respondent, Miriam Lazofsky, is incapacitated from practicing law by reason of mental disability or condition under 22 NYCRR 1240.14(b) is granted, and the respondent, Miriam Lazofsky, is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.14(b) on the ground that she is incapacitated from practicing law by reason of mental disability or condition, for an indefinite period of time and until further order of the Court; and it is further,ORDERED that the disciplinary proceeding commenced, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8, by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts based on the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the verified petition dated March 8, 2017, and the motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts to deem the charges established and to impose discipline are held in abeyance; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent, Miriam Lazofsky, shall promptly comply with this Court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred and suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Miriam Lazofsky, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or 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 herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,ORDERED that if the respondent, Miriam Lazofsky, 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 her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
