Per Curiam — On June 3, 2024, the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District served the respondent by electronic mail, certified mail, and first-class mail, pursuant to this Court’s order dated June 3, 2024, authorizing substituted service, with a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated May 6, 2024, and duly filed those papers with this Court together with an affidavit of service. The petition contains six charges of professional misconduct alleging, inter alia, that the respondent engaged in communications with a party known to be represented by counsel concerning the subject of the representation, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer by sending inappropriate and unsolicited communications, approximately 18 emails and 114 text messages between October 2020 and November 2023, with a former client with whom the respondent was involved in a fee dispute litigation and who the respondent knew to be represented by counsel, in violation of rules 4.2(c) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The petition further alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation into allegations of the respondent’s professional misconduct, and his failure to appear to give sworn testimony and produce documents pursuant to a judicial subpoena, in violation of rule 8.4(d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The notice of petition directed the respondent to file his answer to the petition within 20 days after service upon him of the petition. To date, the respondent has not filed an answer to the 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 based upon his default and to impose such discipline upon him as this Court deems appropriate. Although the motion papers were served upon the respondent on July 2, 2024, by electronic mail, certified mail, and first-class mail, he has neither opposed the motion nor interposed any response thereto. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion to deem the charges against the respondent established based upon his default is granted, the charges in the petition dated May 6, 2024, 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. LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS, and MILLER, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the motion of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District to deem the charges in the petition dated May 6, 2024, established is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent, Timothy A. Green, is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Timothy A. Green, shall 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, Timothy A. Green, shall 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, Timothy A. Green, 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: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
