IN RE: ANTHONY HERNANDEZ (2017)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, a Suspended Attorney.

Decided: December 14, 2017

Before:  Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1992.  He currently resides in Connecticut, where he was previously admitted that same year.  By June 1999 order, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in New York due to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice flowing from his noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 262 A.D.2d 702, 704 [1999] ). As a result of, among other things, his involvement in a scheme to defraud a lender during the course of his ownership of a car dealership, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 USC § 371 in December 2005.  Respondent's plea agreement was accepted by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and, by judgment filed April 29, 2010, he was sentenced to 366 days in prison and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $10,000.  As a result of his conviction, in August 2015, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Connecticut.  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) has now moved, by order to show cause marked returnable October 16, 2017, to impose discipline upon respondent pursuant to Judiciary Law Inasmuch as this matter is now ripe for a final order of discipline (see Judiciary Law § 90[4][g] ), we grant that part of AGC's uncontested motion seeking to impose discipline upon respondent due to his conviction of a serious crime and turn to the inquiry of the appropriate discipline (see Matter of Bouchard, 132 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2015];  Matter of Joslin, 289 A.D.2d 775, 775 [2001] ).1  In aggravation of his misconduct, we note that respondent failed to advise this Court of his conviction within 30 days (see Judiciary Law § 90[4][c];  Matter of Briggs, 120 AD3d 1522, 1523 [2014] ), nor did he advise us of his prior discipline in Connecticut (see Matter of Sgambettera, 144 AD3d 1488, 1489 [2016];  Rules of the App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.19 [b] ).  Moreover 1, respondent's biennial registration delinquency is egregious, having failed to register for the last 11 reporting periods (see Matter of Nichols, 152 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2017] ).  Based upon these factors, respondent's clear disinterest in his fate as an attorney, as well as our consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that, in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter others from committing similar misconduct, respondent should be disbarred in this state (see Matter of Murdter, 138 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2016];  Matter of Tatko, 55 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2008] ).