Matter of Farinella
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Farinella
2026 NY Slip Op 04556
July 23, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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 Thomas A. Farinella, an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Thomas A. Farinella (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4017760), Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
Decided and Entered: July 23, 2026
Motion No. 2026-01722|Case No. 2026-01526|
Present — Hon. Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Justice Presiding, Troy K. Webber Peter H. Moulton Tanya R. Kennedy Saliann Scarpulla
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York
(Kevin P. Culley, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent, pro se.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Thomas A. Farinella, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on March 13, 2002.
Per Curiam [*1]Respondent Thomas A. Farinella was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on March 13, 2002. Respondent maintains a registered address in the First Judicial Department.
Respondent has a significant disciplinary history, including a 2011 disability suspension based on mental infirmity, a 2014 reciprocal three-month suspension, and a 2018 two-year suspension based on formal charges that included conversion.
Now, by motion, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Discipline Matters (22 NYCRR) 1240.9(a)(5), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court based on bank records and other documents evidencing that he converted and/or misappropriated approximately $723,940 in third-party funds in connection with four separate matters. Additionally, the AGC alleges that respondent has failed to cooperate with its investigation by failing to comply with its requests to answer the underlying complaints.
In the first underlying matter, respondent's former client (Client #1) filed a complaint against respondent alleging that he had misappropriated settlement funds intended for Client 1's creditor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As alleged in the complaint, Client 1 remitted $130,000 to respondent which monies were then deposited into his attorney escrow account. However, bank records confirm that respondent did not remit these funds to Client 1's creditor, but rather used them for his own personal purposes, which included recurring payments to online gambling platforms. By September 12, 2025 order, the bankruptcy court removed respondent as Client 1's counsel and directed him to disgorge $142,000 (the legal fees Client 1 had paid him plus the $130,000 in settlement funds).
In the second underlying matter, respondent's former client (Client # 2) filed a complaint against respondent similarly alleging that he had misappropriated settlement funds intended for Client 2's creditor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As alleged in the complaint, Client 2 remitted two $50,000 payments to respondent, which respondent deposited into his escrow account. AGC maintains that bank records and other documents evidence that he misappropriated the settlement funds by making transfers to his business account and withdrawals unrelated to the bankruptcy matter. By September 10, 2024 order, the bankruptcy court removed respondent as Client 2's counsel and directed him to disgorge all funds received from Client 2.
[*2]In the third underlying matter, respondent's former client (Client #3) filed a complaint against respondent alleging that he had failed to account for $343,940.34 in escrow funds entrusted to him in connection with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As alleged in the complaint, Client 3's prior counsel wired $343,940.34 to respondent's escrow account, which he was to disburse in accordance with the liquidating plan that had been confirmed by the bankruptcy court. AGC maintains that bank records evidence that respondent repeatedly made transfers to his business account and other disbursements with these funds, all of which were unrelated to making disbursements for the confirmed bankruptcy plan.
Finally, with respect to the fourth underlying matter, another attorney filed a complaint against respondent pursuant to New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) Rule 8.3(a), alleging that there was reason to suspect that respondent had misappropriated settlement funds in connection with an action pending in the Supreme Court, New York County. As alleged in the complaint, Client #4, an insurance company, had wired $170,000 to respondent's escrow account, which was intended for a judgment creditor. AGC maintains that bank records and additional documents evidence that respondent repeatedly invaded the settlement funds by making transfers to his business account and making other withdrawals unrelated to the settlement.
Respondent has requested that the motion be held in abeyance based on an alleged mental infirmity. By May 21, 2026 order, Justice Friedman denied respondent's request without prejudice to renew to the bench considering the underlying matter. On May 29, 2026, Justice Manzanet-Daniels denied respondent's supplemental request to hold the motion in abeyance based on his claim that he had entered an inpatient treatment facility. As the present record lacks evidence supporting respondent's request that the motion should be held in abeyance based on his alleged mental infirmity, the motion is denied in its entirety.
On the merits, the AGC has met its burden of establishing that respondent should be immediately suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) based on his repeated conversion of entrusted funds, his defiance of court orders, and his failure to cooperate with the AGC, which poses an immediate threat to the public. Allowing him to continue in the practice of law would risk further harm and undermine confidence in the bar.
22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) provides for an interim suspension —
. . . upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest. Such a finding may be based upon . . . (5) other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.
[*3]Here, the bank records and other documents evidence that respondent converted and/or misappropriated approximately $723,940 in third-party funds in connection with four separate matters. In addition, respondent has failed to comply with the AGC's requests that he submit written answers to the underlying complaints (see e.g. Matter of Chilliest
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Matter of Farinella (Matter of Farinella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.