PER CURIAM — On September 16, 2015, the respondent was convicted, upon a plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, before the Honorable Sandra J. Feuerstein, of the crime of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18 USC §§1343 and 1346. The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District now moves to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4), based upon his conviction of a felony. Although the respondent was duly served, he has neither opposed the motion nor interposed any other response thereto. Pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(a), “[a]ny person being an attorney and counsellor-at-law who shall be convicted of a felony as defined in paragraph e of this subdivision, shall upon such conviction, cease to be an attorney and counsellor-at-law.” Judiciary Law §90(4)(e) provides that: “[f]or purposes of this subdivision, the term felony shall mean any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state or any criminal offense committed in any other state, district, or territory of the United States and classified as a felony therein which if committed within this state, would constitute a felony in this state.” A felony committed in another jurisdiction need not be a mirror image of a New York felony, but it must have “essential similarity” (Matter of Margiotta, 60 NY2d 147, 150). In determining whether a federal felony is essentially similar to a New York felony, this Court may consider the plea allocution and/or trial record (see Matter of Woghin, 64 AD3d 5; Matter of Ashley, 263 AD2d 70). The Grievance Committee contends that the respondent’s conviction of the crime of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, in violation of 18 USC §§1343 and 1346, is essentially similar to the New York felony of scheme to defraud in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law §190.65, which provides:
