Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Martin OZER, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Martin Ozer, Esq., Respondent.
Respondent, Martin Ozer, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on October 15, 1958. At all times relevant to the instant proceedings, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On November 22, 1999, this 66-year-old respondent pleaded guilty to an information filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to one count of accessory after the fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3, which is a felony under the United States Code.1 Specifically, respondent admitted that with knowledge that his client had committed bank fraud on four banks, he engaged in conduct designed to delay discovery of the fraud by the banks. Respondent has not yet been sentenced.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“the Committee”) seeks an order determining that the crime of which respondent has been convicted is a “serious crime” as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) and 22 NYCRR § 603.12(b) of the Rules of this Court; suspending respondent as an attorney and counselor-at-law pending further proceedings; and directing respondent, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(g), to show cause before a referee appointed by the Court, who shall hold a hearing and issue a report and recommendation to the Court, as to why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be made.
Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) defines a “serious crime” in pertinent part as “any criminal offense denominated a felony under the laws of ․ the United States which does not constitute a felony under the laws of this state.” Section 603.12(b) of the Rules of this Court states in relevant part, “The term ‘serious crime’ shall include any felony, not resulting in automatic disbarment under the provisions of subdivision 4 of Section 90 of the Judiciary Law.” The crime for which respondent has been convicted, accessory after the fact, is a “serious crime” insofar as it is a felony under the United States Code (see Matter of Rivera, 223 A.D.2d 345, 647 N.Y.S.2d 200).
In mitigation, respondent notes that he has not been the subject of any disciplinary action in the past 17 years; that his prior disciplinary record relates to events that occurred between 17 and 37 years ago; and that his reputation and character are “excellent”. However, respondent's prior disciplinary record is extensive, involving five admonitions and a one-year suspension.
Accordingly, the Committee's petition should be granted, the offense for which respondent has been found guilty deemed to be a “serious crime” within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) and 22 NYCRR 603.12(b) of the Rules of this Court, and respondent suspended from the practice of law pending further proceedings. Respondent is directed to show cause before a referee appointed by the Court, who shall hold a hearing and issue a report and recommendation to this Court as to why a final order of censure, suspension, or disbarment should not be made.
Petition granted insofar as to deem the offense of which respondent has been convicted to be a “serious crime” to suspend respondent from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, and until further order of this Court; and to direct respondent to show cause before a Referee why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be made, all as indicated.
FOOTNOTES
1. On May 12, 1999, respondent was charged in an indictment with one count of conspiracy, four counts of bank fraud, and three counts of fraud with respect to bank loans, all felonies under the United States Code.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 09, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)