Motion List released on: November 14, 2018
By Scheinkman, P.J.; Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Balkin, JJ.MATTER of Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, admitted as Jeffrey Michael Goldfarb, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, res — (Attorney Registration No. 2456986) — Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it isORDERED that the branch of the motion which is pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2), (3), and (5) to suspend the respondent, Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, admitted as Jeffrey Michael Goldfarb, is granted, and Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, admitted as Jeffrey Michael Goldfarb, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the Court; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent, Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, admitted as Jeffrey Michael Goldfarb, 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, Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, admitted as Jeffrey Michael Goldfarb, 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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,ORDERED that if the respondent, Jeffrey M. Goldfarb, admitted as Jeffrey Michael Goldfarb, 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 his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f); and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee, to hear and report, is granted, and the issues raised are referred to Honorable Alfred J. Weiner, c/o Mandel, Katz & Brosnan LLP, 210 Route 303, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and to submit a report, which contains his findings on the issues and charges, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,ORDERED that the branch of the motion which is to provide notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) is denied as unnecessary.We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on uncontroverted evidence that he neglected a client matter, and failed to cooperate with the lawful investigation of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District with regard to two complaints of professional misconduct.In December 2017, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Ophneal Kellman, alleging neglect of his real estate matter. In April 2017 Mr. Kellman had retained Ingber & Provost to handle his purchase of real property located in the Town of Amenia, New York, and the matter was assigned to the respondent, as an associate attorney at that firm. The contracts were executed and a down payment check from Kellman dated April 25, 2017, was forwarded to the seller’s attorney. However, the title closing, which was handled entirely by mail, was not completed until late July 2017. Moreover, the deed, transferring title from the seller to Kellman, was not filed until December 2017 and was not recorded by the Dutchess County Clerk’s Office until January 23, 2018.On or about December 26, 2017, a copy of a sua sponte complaint based on the respondent’s failure to re-register with the New York State Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA) for two biennial periods (2014-2015 and 2016-2017), was forwarded to the respondent at P.O Box 103, Slate Hill, New York, the address listed with OCA. On January 2, 2018, the Grievance Committee reached the respondent by cell phone, at which time the respondent advised that he was residing and could best be reached at his father’s address at 30 Marcy Lane, Middletown, New York. By letters dated January 2, 2018, addressed to the Marcy Lane address, the respondent was directed to file a written response to the sua sponte complaint and the Kellman complaint within 10 days of his receipt thereof, along with a completed background questionnaire. Further, the respondent was directed to take certain steps to update and correct his attorney registration status. The respondent failed to respond to either complaint.On February 6, 2018, the respondent appeared at the Grievance Committee’s office for an examination under oath and produced his client file for the Kellman transaction. During the examination under oath, the respondent acknowledged that the Kellman transaction did not close quickly, and conceded that he had not submitted answers to the Kellman complaint and the sua sponte complaint. The respondent further admitted that he looked into re-registering with OCA, but failed to follow through and complete his registration. The respondent agreed to produce answers to the complaints, along with a completed background questionnaire, and update his attorney registration status with OCA, by February 19, 2018. The respondent failed to comply.Although served with a copy of the motion, the respondent has neither responded, nor requested additional time in which to do so.We find that the Grievance Committee has sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent poses an immediate threat to the public interest based on his neglect of a client matter and failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee’s investigation of two complaints.Based on the foregoing, the Grievance Committee’s motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2),(3), and (5), pending further order of this Court, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.
