Matter of Burke
This text of Matter of Burke (Matter of Burke) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Burke
2026 NY Slip Op 04362
July 9, 2026
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Bridgit Mavis Burke, a Suspended Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2314680)
Decided and Entered:July 9, 2026
PM-145-26
Calendar Date: June 8, 2026
Before: Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher And Powers, JJ.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Cassidy V. Milam of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by the Second Department in 1990, but previously maintained a business address in Albany County (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [a] [2]). In June 2024, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) received a complaint of professional misconduct from one of respondent's clients, alleging that she had failed to refund part of the client's retainer fee and respond to the client's emails and calls. While the client later advised AGC that he had since received the funds and wanted to withdraw the complaint, AGC nonetheless sought respondent's response thereto. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint and provide the client's file, but she later appeared for an examination under oath, where she made admissions to acts of professional misconduct. Following the examination under oath, AGC directed respondent to produce additional records and information, but she ultimately failed to do so. Citing her admissions under oath, as well as her failure to comply with the lawful demands of AGC and to cooperate with its investigation, AGC moved to suspend respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis by motion. While respondent opposed, we granted AGC's motion and suspended respondent on an interim basis in October 2025 (242 AD3d 1488 [3d Dept 2025]). Alleging respondent's continued failure to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension, AGC now moves for respondent's disbarment. Despite being provided notice of AGC's motion, respondent has not submitted a response to AGC's instant motion.
Pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 (b), a respondent who has been suspended for failing to cooperate with an investigation, and who thereafter fails to respond or appear for further disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of his or her suspension, may be disbarred without further notice (see Matter of Gearing, 237 AD3d 1403, 1404 [3d Dept 2025]). We conclude that the evidence supplied by AGC demonstrates that respondent was properly served with the interim suspension order, both via first-class mail at her home address and via email, advising that her failure to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the order would prompt AGC to seek her disbarment. Likewise, AGC provides proof of its service of the instant motion upon respondent, despite not being required to do so (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 [b]; see also Matter of Cohen, 217 AD3d 1248, 1249 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Basch, 183 AD3d 1224, 1225 [3d Dept 2020]), and we also note that this Court notified respondent of the instant motion via regular mail and email. Despite these attempts to contact respondent and inspire her cooperation with AGC's investigation of the underlying [*2]complaint, as well as her participation in these proceedings, she has failed to respond to AGC's instant motion. Given the fact that AGC's investigation as to the underlying client complaint remains unresolved given her noncompliance, we grant AGC's motion and disbar respondent (see e.g. Matter of Gearing, 237 AD3d at 1405; Matter of Cohen, 217 AD3d at 1249; Matter of Basch, 183 AD3d at 1225; Matter of Croak, 156 AD3d 1111, 1112 [3d Dept 2017]).
Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Ceresia, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15).
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Burke, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-burke-nyappdiv-2026.