PER CURIAM — The Grievance Committee commenced a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent by filing a notice of petition dated October 12, 2018, and a verified petition dated October 5, 2018. On October 29, 2018, the respondent was personally served with copies of the notice of petition and the verified petition, along with a motion by order to show cause pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2), (3) and (5), seeking, inter alia, his immediate suspension upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest. An affidavit of service was duly filed with the Court on October 31, 2018. The notice of petition directed the respondent to file and serve his answer to the verified petition within 20 days after service upon him of the verified petition. To date, the respondent has neither served an answer to the verified petition, nor requested additional time in which to do so. The respondent also has not responded to the motion or requested additional time in which to do so.By way of background, the verified petition contains 12 charges of professional misconduct alleging misappropriation, dishonesty, failure to maintain required bookkeeping records, other IOLA account improprieties, and a failure to provide requested records, all arising from and concerning the misappropriation of a single client’s funds.The Grievance Committee now moves to deem the charges established, and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems appropriate, based upon his default for failure to answer the petition. On November 28, 2018, the Grievance Committee served the respondent with a copy of the instant motion to adjudicate him in default. To date, the respondent has neither responded to the motion nor requested additional time in which to do so.Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion is granted, the charges in the petition are deemed established, and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred upon his default, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. The motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 for the respondent’s immediate suspension is denied as academic.All concur.SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BARROS, JJ.,concur.
