PER CURIAM — On April 2, 2018, the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts served the respondent, as authorized pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(6), by means of substituted service with a notice of petition dated April 2, 2018, and a verified petition dated March 27, 2018, and duly filed those papers with this Court together with an affidavit of service. The verified petition contains three charges of professional misconduct, which allege that the respondent failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct, that he abandoned his law practice, and that he misappropriated client funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law with respect to 15 client matters, respectively. The notice of petition directed the respondent to serve and file his answer to the verified petition within 20 days after service upon him of the verified petition. To date, the respondent has neither served nor filed an answer to the verified petition, as directed, nor requested additional time in which to do so.The Grievance Committee now moves to deem the charges against the respondent established, and to impose such discipline upon him as this Court deems appropriate, based upon his default. Although the motion papers were served by the Grievance Committee, as authorized pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(6), by means of substituted service upon the respondent on June 1, 2018, he has neither opposed the instant motion nor interposed any response thereto.Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion is granted, the charges in the verified petition are deemed established, and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.All Concur.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN JJ., concur.ORDERED that the Grievance Committee’s motion is granted; and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, a suspended attorney, is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,ORDERED that the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, shall continue to comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, the respondent, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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, Alan Ross, admitted as Arkady Dynin, 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).ENTER: Aprilanne Agostino Clerk of the Court
