Matter of Cela
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Cela
2026 NY Slip Op 04766
July 29, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Per Curiam
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 Enri Cela, a suspended attorney. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Enri Cela, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 5784392)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 29, 2026
2024-05310
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Mark C. Dillon
Colleen D. Duffy
Betsy Barros
Janice A. Taylor, JJ.
Catherine A. Sheridan, Hauppauge, NY (Stacey J. Sharpelletti of counsel), for petitioner.
Foley Griffin, LLP, Garden City, NY (Thomas J. Foley of counsel), for respondent.
The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on May 20, 2020. By decision and order on motion dated January 29, 2025, the respondent was directed to show cause why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made based on his conviction of a serious crime. By the same decision and order on motion, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(ii), as a result of his conviction of a serious crime.
Per Curiam. [*1]Per Curiam.
OPINION & ORDER
On September 8, 2023, the respondent was convicted,
upon his plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, before the Honorable Steven Tiscione, United States Magistrate Judge, of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), a federal felony. On or about April 4, 2024, the respondent notified this Court and the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District of his conviction. By decision and order on motion dated January 29, 2025, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(ii), based on his conviction of a serious crime. This Court further directed the respondent to show cause at a hearing before David I. Ferber, as Special Referee, why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made based on his conviction of a serious crime. After a hearing conducted on April 1, 2025, the Special Referee filed a report dated May 14, 2025, setting forth his findings and concluding that the respondent had not demonstrated why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court may deem just and proper. In response, the respondent, through counsel, requests leniency from the Court and the imposition of a sanction of a public censure.
Federal Conviction
On or about April 18, 2023, an indictment was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging the respondent with two criminal felony counts, [*2]conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(D), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). The indictment provided that between October 2020 and April 26, 2022, the respondent, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to distribute and possessed with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance, a substance containing marijuana, for remuneration. Further, the indictment contained a criminal forfeiture provision for approximately $20,850, a sum which was seized in connection with the investigation.
On September 8, 2023, the respondent pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement before the Honorable Steven Tiscione, United States Magistrate Judge, to count two of the indictment, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), a federal felony. During the plea allocution, the respondent described his actions as follows: "On April 26, 2022, in Long Island, I did knowingly possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. And when I did this, I knew it was illegal."
On March 25, 2024, the Honorable Gary R. Brown, United States District Judge,
sentenced the respondent to a term of probation of two years, 100 hours of community service to be completed during the term of probation, a special assessment of $100, and forfeiture of $20,850. The first count of the indictment was dismissed during the sentencing hearing.
The Hearing Record
A hearing was held on April 1, 2025. The Grievance Committee entered five
exhibits into evidence. The respondent submitted nine character letters, called two character witnesses, and testified on his own behalf.
The record reflects that the respondent made a number of threats in the commission of his crime which were characterized by his criminal defense attorney as "puffing" in an attempt to bolster his credibility as a marijuana dealer and which, according to his criminal defense attorney, were in stark contrast to his prior history of nonviolence. At the sentencing proceeding, the District Court stated,
"Now, the threats, you are also very fortunate in another way that you have one of the toughest and most thorough prosecutors I have ever seen in my life. Mr. Bagnuola is here and he got to the bottom of the threats of violence because I have to tell you, if that was a thing, if that was real, you would be going to jail today. . . . Rank, rank, stupidity, texting people, I'm going to kneecap this guy, I'm going to kill this guy, are you kidding me? You went to law school. You know about generating evidence. What kind of evidence is that? You generated false evidence about a crime I don't think you had any intention of committing. If I believed for a second you did you would be going to jail and spending a lot time there. . . . I have to tell you I was thinking otherwise because it's so ridiculous and so outrageous and it wasn't an insubstantial amount of money. $20,000 cash, most people would appreciate that in their life. You knew better than anybody what the consequences were. I'm shocked by the case."
In mitigation, the respondent testified that "I would like to reemphasize that I fully accept responsibility for why I am here today. I—I don't know how to express how sorry I am for my conduct and how embarrassed I am for why I'm here today. And it will absolutely never happen again."
The Special Referee's Report
In a report dated May 14, 2025, the Special Referee concluded that
the respondent did not demonstrate why a final order of disc
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Cela (Matter of Cela) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.