In re Seader

257 A.D.2d 285, 690 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5534
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 285 (In re Seader) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Seader, 257 A.D.2d 285, 690 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent, Paul A. Seader, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 21, 1973. At all times relevant to this [286]*286proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Judicial Department.

A superior court information filed in the New York County Supreme Court alleged that between 1984 and 1998, respondent fraudulently induced a client to invest over two million dollars ($2,000,000) by intentionally misrepresenting that the money was being deposited in an FDIC-insured American Express Bank in Puerto Rico. In reality, American Express Bank was not FDIC insured, nor did it have a Puerto Rico branch. During this 14-year period, respondent sent his client fraudulent account statements and letters to which respondent had signed the names of American Express Bank personnel, in order to mislead the client into believing that the money was on deposit in American Express Bank savings accounts. On January 22, 1999, respondent pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.42, a class B felony.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b). As respondent was automatically disbarred upon entry of his guilty plea to a New York felony, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e), the Committee’s petition should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys (Matter of Remmelink, 233 AD2d 25).

Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, and the name of respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Conroy
309 A.D.2d 57 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Bloomfield
292 A.D.2d 144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Adler
292 A.D.2d 81 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Wallman
276 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 A.D.2d 285, 690 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seader-nyappdiv-1999.