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: Daniel S. CHILEWICH, (admitted as Daniel Seth Chilewich), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Committee, Petitioner, Daniel S. Chilewich, Respondent.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York on January 11, 1993, by the First Judicial Department. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
In 2003, respondent was charged in a multi-count indictment with restraint of trade and competition in violation of General Business Law §§ 340 and 341 and enterprise corruption, two counts of commercial bribery in the first degree, three counts of bribery in the third degree, six counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, and money laundering in the fourth degree, in violation of New York Penal Law Sections 460.20(1)(a), 180.03, 200.00, 175.35, and 470.05(1)(a)(i)(A), respectively. On February 2, 2005, respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in Supreme Court, New York County, of the crime of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, in violation of Penal Law § 175.35, a class E felony, in full satisfaction of the indictment.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that he was automatically disbarred upon his conviction of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e). Respondent, through counsel, does not oppose the relief sought by the Committee.
Respondent ceased to be an attorney in New York upon his conviction of a felony (see Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a); Matter of Singer, 12 A.D.3d 15, 783 N.Y.S.2d 42 [2004] ). The fact that respondent has not yet been sentenced is not an impediment to the Committee's petition. For purposes of disbarment, conviction occurs at the time of plea (see Matter of Lurie, 207 A.D.2d 48, 49, 621 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1995] ).
Accordingly, the petition should be granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice law (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4][b] ), nunc pro tunc to February 2, 2005.
Respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorney's and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to February 2, 2005.
PER CURIAM.
All concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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 24, 2005
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)